K 


f^ 


THE    DEVELOPMENT 

OF    THE 

FRENCH    MONARCHY 

I    I    O  '^    -     3  1. 

UNDER   LOUIS   VL  LE   GROS 
I 108-1 137 


A  DISSERTATION  PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  ARTS 

LITERATURE,  AND  SCIENCE  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CHICAGO,  IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE 

DEGREE  OF  DOCTOR  OF 

PHILOSOPHY 


JAMES  WESTFALt  THOMPSON,  A.B. 


CHICAGO 

XLbc  "Clniversltig  of  Cbfcago  press 
1895 


-^i/] 


7:j  f  ^y- 


TO 

BENJAMIN  S.  TERRY,  Ph.D., 

PROFESSOR  OF  MEDIEVAL  AND  ENGLISH  HISTORY,. 

IN 

THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO, 

THIS  STUDY  OF  THE  FRENCH  FEUDAL  MONARCHY 

IS  DEDICATED 

WITH  THE  HOMAGE  OF 

THE  AUTHOR 


CONTENTS. 


Vll- 

-Xll 

I- 

-16 

17- 

-21 

22- 

-30 

Bibliography 

Introduction :  Louis  VI.  and  the   French  Mon- 
archy     -  -  -  -  - 
Part         I.     The  War  of  the  Vexin    -             -             -  - 
•'           II,     The  Liberation  of  the  Realm 
"          III.     The  Court  of  the  King  and  its  Judicial  Func- 
tions under  Louis  VI.            -             -  -      31-45 
"          IV.     Administrative  Organization 

Central  Administration  -  -  -  46-54 

Local  Administration  -  -  -      55-56 

"  V.     Feudal  and  Public  Economy  -  -  57-62 

VI.     Relation  of  Louis  VI.  to  the  Church        -  -      63-74 

"        VII.     King  and  Communes.     Royalty  and  the  Popular 

Classes  -----     75-91 

"       VIII.     Foreign  Policy  and  Politics  -  -  92-1 11 

Summary  of  the  Reign  of  Louis  VL        -  -112-113 

Biographical  Note    -  -  -  -  114 


BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

The  following  list  is  as  exhaustive  a  bibliography  as  could  be 
compiled.  In  the  nature  of  things  it  could  be  amplified  by 
researches  in  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale.  No  one  who  has  not 
learned  them  from  his  own  experience,  can  realize  the  difficulties 
under  which  an  American  student  labors,  in  making  a  thorough 
study  of  European  —  and  especially  mediaeval  history,  so  far  from 
the  sphere  of  action.  Hitherto,  in  Graduate  Schools,  the  emphasis 
has  been  almost  wholly  laid  upon  American  history  and  institu- 
tions. 

Almost  all  the  chronicles  cited  may  be  found  in  the  Recueil 
des  Historiens  des  Gaules  et  de  la  France,  Paris,  1 738-1876,  23 
vols.  Edited  by  Bouquet,  Brial,  Pardessus,  Delisle,  and  others. 
Tomes  XII.  to  XV.  contain  the  sources  of  the  period  under  con- 
sideration. Reference  to  these  volumes  have  been  cited  simply 
"H.  F."  In  chronicles  or  letters  of  special  importance,  fuller 
indication  is  made.     The  most  important 

NARRATIVE    SOURCES. 

Sugerius,  VitaLudovici  VI.  Grossi  sive  Crassi  regis,  Philippi I.  filii.'Ediiion 
of  Molinier.  Collection  de  Textes  de  la  Societe  de  P Ecole  des  Charles.    Paris,  1887. 
This  .is  uniformly  cited  unless  that  of    the   Societe  de   V Histoire  de  France  is 
mentioned.     The  latter  is  : 
Sugerius,  Vita  Ludovici  VI.  Grossi,  etc. 

—  Liber  de  Rebus  sua  administratione  gestis. 
WiLLELMUS,  Vita  Sugerii,  abbatis  S.  Dionysii.     Edition  of  Lecoy  de  la  Marche. 

Paris,  1867. 
Ordericus   Vitalis,  Historica  Ecclesiastica.     Societe   de  V Histoire  de  France. 

Edition  of  Leprevost,  5  vols.    Paris,  1838-55. 
Galbertus  Brugensis,  Passio  Karoli  comitis  Flatidriae.     Collection  de  Textes 

de  la  Societe  de  I Ecole  des  Charles,  Edition  of  Pirenne.     Paris  1 891. 
Chronicon  Morigniacensis  Monasterii,  ord.  S.  Benedicti,  H.  F.,  XII. 
Henrici  Huntendunsis,  Historia  Anglorum,  Edition  of   Arnold,  Rolls  Series. 

London,  1879. 
WiLLELMi  Malmsbiriensis,  De  Gestis  Regum  Anglorum,  Edition  of  Stubbs, 

Rolls  Series,  2  vols.,  Ibid.     London,  1887. 


Viu  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

DOCUMENTARY    SOURCES. 
Epistolae  Ludovici  VI.,  H.  F.,  XV. 

—  Sugerii  "         " 

—  Sf.  Bernardi  "         " 

—  Ivonis  Carnotensis,    "       XII. 

LUCHAIRE,  Louis  VI.  {le  Gros);  Annates  de  sa  Vie  et  de  son  Rigne  {1081-1137), 

avec  une  Introduction  historique.     Paris,  1 890. 
Ordonnances  des  Rois  de  France  de  ia  III^  race  jusqu'en  1514.    22  vols.,  Paris, 

1723-1849.     Tomes  I,  VII,  XI,  XII. 
Tardif,  Monuments  historiques,  2  vols.,  Paris,  1866. 
Teulet,  Layettes  du  Tresor  des  Chartes,  3  vols.,  Paris,  1863,  Vol.  I. 
ViOLLET,    Une    Grande   Chronique   latine  de  Saint  Denis.     Observations  pour 

servir  a  fhistoire  critique  des  Oeuvres  de  Suger,  in  Bibliothique  de  T  Acole  des 

Chartes,  XXXIV,  1873. 
Robert,  Histoire  et  bullaire  du  pape  Calixte II.  (i  1 19-1 124).  Essaide  Restitution. 

2  vols.,  Paris,  1891. 
Langlois,  Textes  Relatifs  a  V Histoire  du  Parlement  depuis  les  Origines  jusqu' en 

1314.     Collection  de  Textes  de  la  Societe  de  I Ecole  des  Chartes     Paris,  1888. 
M.PlBW.i.O'H,  De  Re  Diplomatica.     Second  Edition.     Paris,  1709. 
•'  Brussel,   Nouvel  Examen    de  V  Usage  general  des  fiefs  en  France.     2  vols., 

Paris,  1727. 
Collection  de  documents  inedits  sur  P Histoire  de  France. 

Gv^&AKT),  Cartulaire  delEglise  Notre-Davie  de  Paris.     4  vols.     Paris,  1850. 

—  Cartulaire  de  St.  Denis,  6  vols.     Paris,  1839-1852. 

—  Cartulaire  delabbaye  de  Saint  Pire  a  Chartres.     2  vols.     Paris,  184O. 
Du  Cange,  Glossarium,  New  Edition,  10  vols.     Paris,  1883. 

AUTHORITIES. 
Luchaire,  Histoire  des  Institutions  Monarchiques  de  la  France  sous  les  premiers 
Capetiens,  (987-1180).     2  vols.     Second  Edition.     Paris,  1891.     Contains 
Appendix  of  original  documents. 

—  Manuel  des  Institutions  Fran^aises.     Paris,  1892. 

—  Les  Commtines  Franfaises  a  r Epoque  des  Capetiens  directs.     Paris,  1890. 

—  La  Cour  du  Roi  et  ses  fonctions  judiciaires  sous  le  Rigne  de  Louis  VL  (l  108- 
I137),  in  Annates  de  la  Faculti  des  Lettres  de  Bourdeaux,  1880. 

—  Remarques  sur  la  Succession  des   Grands  Officiers  de  la  Couronne,  {iioS- 
1 180).     In  Annates  de  la  Faculti  des  Lettres  de  Bourdeaux,  1881. 

ViOLLET,  Histoire  du  Droit  Franfais.     Paris,  1886. 
Y'LhCH,  Les  Origines  de  Pancienne  France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1886. 
J^MBES,  EAbbe  Suger:  Histoire  de  son  Ministire  et  de  sa  Regence.    Paris,  1853. 
HUGUENIN,  Etude  sur  lahbe  Suger.     Paris,  1855. 
Robert,  Histoire  du  Pupe  Calixte II.     Paris,  1 891. 

VuiTRY,  Etudes  sur  le  Regime  financier  de  la  France  avant  la  Revolution  de 
1789.     3  vols.     Paris,  1878-1883.     Vol.  I. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  IX 

Pardessus,  Essai  Historique  stir  V  Organisation  judictaire  et  I  Administration  de 

la  justice.     Paris,  1851. 
Henrion,  De  lAutorite  judictaire  en  France.     Paris,  1827. 
'DvhAV^'E,  Histoire  de  Paris.     Paris,  1829.     (Fourth  Edition). 
Brequigny,  Recherches  sur  les    Communes   et  les   Bourgeoisies.      Preface  to 

Recueil  des  Historiens  des  Gaules  et  de  la  France,  tomes  XI,  XII. 
Gkoss,  Gild  Merchant.     2  vols.     Oxford,  1 890. 
Daniel,  Histoire  de  la  Milice  francaise  et  des  Ckangements  qui  s'y  sont  fails 

depuis  r etablissement  de  la  Monarchie  franfaise  dans  les  Gaules  jusqu" a  la 

fin  du  Rigne  de  Louis  le  Grand.     2  vols.     Amsterdam,  1724. 
Gaillard,  Histoire  de   la   Rivalite  de  la   France   et  de  P Angleterre.     6  vols. 

Paris,  1818.     Vol.  I. 
Lamprecht,  £tude  sur  lAtat  economique  de  la  France  pendant  la  premiire 

partie  du  Moyen-Age.     Translated  by  A.  Marignan.     Paris,  1889. 
BOUTARIC,  Institutions  Militaires  de  la  France.     Paris,  1863. 
Glasson,  Histoire  Du  Droit  des  Institutions  de  la  France.     To  be  complete  in 

ten  volumes.     Paris,  1884,  ff.  Vols.  IV-V. 
Imbart  de  LA  Tour,  Les  Elections  episcopates  dans  VEglise  de  France  du  IX* 

au  XIII^  Sihles.     Paris,  1891. 
Baron    de   Nervo,  Les   Finances  fran^aises    sous  Pancienne   Monarchic,   la 

Republique,  la  Consulat  et  P Empire.     3.  vols.     Paris,  1863.     Vol.  I. 
Emile  Lair,  Des  Hautes   Cours  Politiques  en  France  et  a  PEtranger.     Paris, 

1889. 
GuizoT,  History  of  Civilization  in  France.     New  York.     Hazlitt's  Translation. 

Many  editions. 
Rambaud,  Histoire  de  la  Civilisation  francaise.     2  vols.     Fifth  Edition.     Paris, 

1893. 
GlESEBRECHT,    Geschichtc   der  deutschen    Kaiserzeit.     5  vols.     Vol.    III.,  Fifth 

Edition.     Leipzig,   1890.  ' 

Pfister,  Etudes  sur  le  Regne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  Paris  1885. 
Petit,  Histoire  des  Dues  de  Bourgogne  de  la  Race  capetienne.     5  vols.     Dijon, 

1885.     Vol.  I. 
Chevalier,  Repei-toire  des  sources  historiques  du  Moyen-Age — Bio-bibliographie. 
Dareste,   Histoire  de  P Administration   et    des    progres    du  pouvoir    royal  en 

France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1848. 
C.  P.   Marie-Haas,   H Administration  de  la  France.     Four  volumes  in  two. 

Paris,  1861.     Vol.  I. 
AUBERT,  LeParlement  de  Paris  de  Philippe  le  Beta  Charles  VII.     ^1314-1422). 

Paris,  1886. 
Freeman,  History   of  the   Norman    Conquest    of   England.     5    vols.     Third 

Edition.     Oxford,  1876-1877.     Vol.  V. 
—  The  Reign  of  William  Rufus.     2.  vols.     Oxford,  1882. 
Stubbs,  Constitutional  History  of  England.     3  vols.     Fifth  Edition.     Oxford, 

1 89 1.     Vol.  I. 


X  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Vpclgv^kvs.,  History  of  England  and  Normandy.    4  vols.  Vol.  IV.    London,  1864. 
Ranke,  Franzosiscke  Geschichte.     Werke,  VIII. 

'i^^O^OKlS.,  England  under  the  Angevin  Kings.     2  vols.     London,  1887. 
Walker,  On  the  Increase  of  Royal  Power  in  France  under  Philip  Augustus, 

Leipzig,  1888. 
TnrnKKY,  Histoire  du  Tiers- Atat.     Paris,  1853. 

—  Lettres  sur  THistoire  de  France.     Seventh  Edition.     Paris,  1859. 
Raynouard,  Histoire  dti  Droit  Municipal  en  France.     Paris,  1829.     2  vols. 
Clamageran,  Histoire  de  Ilmpot  en  France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1867. 
PiGEONNEAU,  Histoire  du  Comtnerce  de  la  France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1889. 
Levasseur,  Histoire  des  Classes  Ouvrilres  ejt  France.     4  vols.     Paris,  1859. 
Brentano,    Introduction    to    Montchretien,    Traite   de   V QLconoinie    politique. 

Paris,  1889. 
Brentano,  On  the  History  and  Development  of  Gilds.     London,  1870. 
Schaeffner,  Geschichte  der  Rechtsverfassung   Frankreichs.     4  vols.     Frank- 
fort, 1845-9.     Vol.  2. 
Lea,  History  of  Sacerdotal  Celibacy.     Philadelphia,  1886. 
Langlois,  Le  Rigne  de  Phillippe  le  Hardi.     Paris,  1887. 
S^CK'ET Ati,  Essai  sur  la  Feodalite.     Lausanne,  1858. 
'Lavvl-e.^t,  la  Feodalite  et  lEglise.     Second  Edition.     Paris,  1865. 
Biblioth'eque  des  Huutes  Ftudes: 

GiRY,  Histoire  de  la  Ville  de  Sai?it  Omer.     Paris,  1877. 
— Etablissements  de  Rouen.     2  vols.     Paris,  1885. 
'    Le  Franc,  Histoire  de  la  Ville  de  Noyen.     Paris  1887. 
W AVT:y.ks,  Les  Liberies  Communales.     Essai  sur  leur  origiites  et  leurs  premiers 

developpements   en  Belgique,  dans  le  A'ord  de  la  France  et  sur  les  bords 

du  Rhin.     2  vols.     Bruxelles,  1872. 
Taili.ar,  Notice  sur  Vorigine  de  la  formation  des  villages  du  Nord  de  la  France. 

Douai,  1862. 
Hirsch,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  Konig  Ludwigs  VII.  von  Frankreich  (1119- 

1160).     Leipzig,  1892. 
Lalanne,  Dictionnaire  historique.     Second  Edition.     Paris,  1887. 
Cheruel,  Dictionnaire  historique  des  Institutions  de  la  France.  2  vols.  Paris,  1880. 
Renault,  AbregS  Chronologique  de  I  Histoire  de  France.     2  vols.     Paris,  1823. 
Longnon,  Atlas  historique  de  la  France.     Troisi^me  Livraison.     Paris,  1889. 
Phillips,  Der  Ursprung  des  Regalienrechts  in  Frankreich.     Halle,  1870. 
Thiel,  Die  politische  Thatigkeit  des  Abtes  Bernhard  von  Clairvaux. 
HORES,  Das  Bistum  Cambrai,  seine  polit.  und  kirchl.  Beziehungen  zu  Deutsch- 

land,  Frankreich  und  Flandern,  und  Entwicklung  der  Commune  von  Caw/- 

brai  {iog2-iigi).     Leipzig,  1882. 

SPECIAL    ARTICLES,  OR    ESSAYS. 
Revue  de  deux  Mondes,  Oct.,  1873,  p.  581.     Origines  de  V Administration 
ray  ale  en  France. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY.  XI 

Revue    historique,    XXXVII.     (1888).     Luchaire :    Louis   le   Gros    et  son 

Palatins. 
Revue  historique,  XLII.  (1890).     Langlois  :  Les  Origines  du  Parlement  de 

Paris. 
Revue  historique,  XLIV.  (1890).     Prou:  De  la  Nature  du  Service  militaire 

par  les  Roturiers  aux  XP^  et  XII^  siicles. 
Revue    historique,    XLIX.  (1892).      Leroux:    La   Royaute  franfaise  et  le 

Saint  Empire  Romain. 
Revue  des  Questions  historiques,  XLIX.     Vacandard  :  St.  Berttard  et  la 

Royaute  fraticaise. 
Nouvelle  Revue  historique  de  Droit  fran^ais   et   jeitranger,    VIII. 
(1884)  pp.  139,  267,  441.     Prou  :  Les  Coutumes  de  Lorris  et  leur  propagation 
aux  XI I ^  et  XIII  ^  sihles. 
M^MOiREs  de  l'Acadi^mie  des  Inscriptions  : 

XXVII.  184(1754).    Lebeuf:  £,claircissements  sur  la  chronologic  des  rignes 

de  Louis  le  Gros  et  de  Louis  le  Jeune. 
XXIX.  268  (1760).     Bonamy  :     Reniarques  sur  le  litre  de    Tris-Chretien 

donne  aux  rois  de  France,  et  sur  le  temps  oh  cet  usage  a  commence. 
XXIX.  273  (1760).     Bonamy  :  Recueil  d'autorites  qui  servent  a  prouvet  que 
longtemps  avant  le  rkgne  de  Louis  XL  nos  rois  ont  etc  dicorcs  du  litre 
de  Tris-Chretien, 
XLIII.  345  (1777).     Gaillard :  Des  Causes  de  la  haine  personelle  qu'on  a 

cru  remarque  entre  Louis  VI.  et  Henri  I.,  roi  d'Angleterre. 
XLIII.  421   (1778).     Brequigny:   Observations   sur  le   testament  de    Guil- 

laume  X.,  due  d'Aquitaine  et  comte  de  Poitou,  mort  en  1 137. 
IV.  489  (1805).     Brial :  Recherches  historiques  et  diplomatique s  sur  la  veri- 
table epoque  de  V association  de  Louis  le  Gros  au  trdne  avec  le  litre  de 
Roi  designe. 
VII.  129  (1806).     Brial :  Aclaircissement  d'un  passage  de  Vabbe  Suger  rela- 

tif  a  Vhistoire  du  Berry. 
IX.  (1886).     Luchaire  :  Sur  deux  monogrammes  de  Louis  le  Gros. 
Seances  et  Travaux   de   l'Academie  des  Sciences  morales  et  poli- 

TIQUES: 

XVI.  161  (1888).     l>uchaire  :  Les  Milices  communales  et  la  Royaute  cape- 
tienne. 

GENERAL    HISTORIES. 
Makti'H,  Histoire  de  France.     17  vols.     Paris,  1840. 
SiSMOt^Dl,  Histoire  des  Francais.     31  vols.     Paris,  1821-1844. 
MlCHELET,  Histoire  de  France.      17  vols.     Paris,  1871-1874. 
Mably,  Collection  complHe  des  Oeuvres  de  Vabbe  Mably.     15  vols.     Paris,  1794- 

1795.     Vol.  2. 
Velly,  Villaret,  Garnier,  etc.,  Histoire  de  France.     26  vols.     Paris,  1808- 

1812. 
Kitchen,  History  of  France.     Third  Edition.     Oxford,  1892.     3  vols.     Vol.  I. 


XU  BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

Popular  but  wholly  uncritical  works,  or  articles,  are : 
'D'eCkk^y.,  Fondateurs  de  r Unite  Franfaise.     2  vols.     1856.     "  Suger." 
Baudrillart,   Histoire   dti   Luxe.     4   vols.     Paris,   1881.     Vol.   III.,  ch.  v., 

"Suger  et  son  rdle  dans  le  luxe." 
Clement,  in  Le  Moniteur  Universel,  1853,  pp.  1391,  139S,  1427.     December 

16,  17,  25,  1853.     "  Portraits  Historiques — Suger." 

Other  writings  which  will  be  at  once  recognized  are  occasion- 
ally cited,  but  the  body  of  the  dissertation  has  been  built  upon 
the  above. 


INTRODUCTION. 

LOUIS  VI.  AND  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

"  M.  Thierry  remarks  very  truly  that  every  people  has  two 
histories  —  the  one  interior,  national  and  domestic,  the  other 
exterior.  The  former  he  goes  on  to  describe  as  the  history  of 
its  laws  and  institutions,  and  its  political  changes  —  in  one  word, 
of  its  action  upon  itself ;  the  latter  he  refers  to  the  action  of  the 
people  upon  others,  and  the  part  it  may  claim  in  influencing  the 
common  destinies  of  the  world.  Of  these  two  histories  the  first 
cannot,  of  course,  be  fully  written  till  the  people  has  reached  the 
term  of  its  political  individuality,  neither  can  the  second  be 
written  till  the  farthest  effect  of  its  influence  can  be  traced  and 
estimated."' 

These  words  are  profound  political  philosophy.  The  first 
category  eminently  characterizes  the  history  of  mediaeval  France, 
at  least  until  the  reign  of  Philip  Augustus,  when  France  was 
nearing  the  term  of  her  political  individuality  and  was  beginning 
to  appear  upon  the  wide  arena  of  European  politics.  In  order 
properly  to  understand  the  growth  of  a  state  we  must  consider 
it  in  its  origin  and  termination.  Between  these  limits  all  is 
formative,  institutional.  The  Middle  Ages  were  essentially  an 
institutional  period,  when  forms  and  customs  were  in  the  making. 
They  were  the  gigantic  crucible  into  which  all  the  greatness  and 
grandeur  of  the  ancient  civilized  world  was  plunged ;  they  were 
the  crucible  out  of  which  the  states  and  nations  and  institutions 
of  modern  Europe  emerged.  Among  these  institutions  there 
was  one  which  was  all-prevalent :  feudalism,  in  ever-varying 
form,  was  the  institution  of  the  Middle  Ages.' 

'  Merivale.  History  of  the  Romans  under  the  Empire.  Fourth  edition, 
1863.     Vol.  I.     Introd.,  p.  8,  citing  Amed^e  Thierry. 

'  Yet  feudalism  does  not  present  the  phenomena  of  social  decay,  but  of 
social  progress.     It  was  an  attempt  to  regulate  the  disorder  due  to  the  weak- 


2  INTRODUCTION. 

Feudalism  is  the  accompaniment  of  a  declining  civilization. 
When  a  great  state  is  passing  into  decadence,  class  interests 
usurp  the  higher,  public  interests  and  authority.  The  Frank 
monarchy  was  organized  under  feudal  forms  because  the  political 
features  of  Teutonic  life  had  become  more  or  less  assimilated 
with  those  of  the  decaying  Roman  imperium.  When  the  Romano- 
Frank  monarchy  also  declined,  the  feudal  regime  was  intensified 
in  degree.  And  yet,  during  the  entire  tenth  century,  when  its 
power  was  least,  the  Carlovingian  dynasty  struggled  to  maintain 
the  traditional  character  of  the  monarchy,  and  was,  as  a  conse- 
quence, in  antagonism  with  the  excessive  feudal  tendency.  More 
than  this  —  all  the  kings  of  this  century,  whether  they  appertained 
to  the  Carlovingian  house  or  to  the  family  of  Robert  the  Strong, 
sought  with  varying  energy  and  unequal  success  to  maintain  the 
prerogatives  of  monarchial  authority  against  the  encroachments 
of  feudalism.  This  was  a  steadfast  purpose  in  the  mind  of  the 
representatives  of  the  rival  houses,  as  well  those  who  were  kings 
as  those  who  sought  to  be  kings.  The  difference  lay  in  this  : 
the  Carlovingian  monarchy  reposed  on  past  traditions,  past  per- 
sons, past  powers.  The  glamor  of  the  great  days  of  the  great 
Charles  tinged  it  with  an  alienated  majesty  and  made  it  seem,  to 
the  infatuated  minds  of  Louis  IV.  and  Lothar,  what  it  was  not. 
This  accounts  for  Louis'  rash  attempt  to  conquer  Normandy,  and 
Lothar's  equally  rash  effort  to  recover  Lotharingia.  The  age  was 
not  as  great  as  their  ideas.  On  the  other  hand,  ihe  house  of 
Robert  was  self-reliant.  It  had  no  force  not  of  itself  on  which 
to  rely ;  it  had  no  taint  of  outworn  sovereignty.  Moreover,  the 
personal  force  of  Robert  and  Odo  and  the  two  Hughs  was 
superior  to  the  personal  force  of  their  royal  rivals,  although  that 
was  not  as  despicable  as  is  customarily  believed.' 

The  later  Carlovingians  were  not  weak  ;  they  were  not  deficient 
in  activity  and  energy.  The  legend  that  they  were  morally  weak 
is  due  partly  to  the  natural  analogy  between  the  last  days  of  the 
Merovingians  and  the  Carlovingians,  and  also  to  a  failure  to 

ness  of  government.     For  some  wise  words  on  this  head,  see  Stubbs,  Bened. 
Peterburg.  (Rolls  Series),  II.  Introd.  xxxv. 
'  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  27. 


INTRODUCTION.  3 

observe  with  due  regard  that  time  and  circumstance  wonderfully 
modify  the  face  of  events.  This  is  one  reason.  Partly  also 
because  it  is  the  irony  of  history  that  men  who  fight  a  losing 
cause  almost  never — Hannibal  is  a  sovereign  exception  —  how- 
ever great  be  their  efforts,  win  admiration.  Louis  d'Outremer  and 
Lothar  were  men  of  approved  courage,  perseverance  and  a  moral 
superiority  above  their  immediate  predecessors.  The  trouble 
was  that  they  tried  to  do  too  much.  They  used  their  resources 
with  a  vigor  and  lavishness  which,  if  they  had  moved  with  the 
current  would  have  made  them  princes  great  indeed.  But  the 
alienated  majesty  of  the  empire,  the  vast  continuity  of  force 
which  had  never  been  balked  from  Pepin  d'Heristal  and  Charles 
Martel  downwards  till  the  day  of  Louis  Debonnaire,  made  these 
later  kings  of  the  same  house  ill  brook  a  substitution  of  suzerainty 
for  sovereignty. 

The  responsibility  of  this  new  situation  lies  more  at  the  feet 
of  the  earlier  successors  of  Charles  the  Great.  If  Louis  Debon- 
naire dissolved  the  sheaf  of  his  authority  and  suffered  the  grain 
to  be  taken,  what  could  his  successors  do  with  the  straw?  It  was 
a  difficult  thing  to  build  up  power  upon  a  bundle  of  negatives, 
and  this  state  of  things  was  aggravated  by  the  coming  of  the 
Northmen.  The  later  Carlovingians  were  obliged  to  accept  the 
results  of  the  triple  revolution  which  tended  to  suppress  the 
central  power,  /;/  fact,  though  they  saved  their  dignity  by  not 
doing  so  in  law,  namely  :  (i)  The  transformation  of  the  benefice 
in  fief.  (2)  The  usurpation  and  hereditary  transmission  of  public 
functions.  (3)  The  hierarchichal  constitution  of  feudalism,  which 
tended  to  make  the  king  more  a  suzerain  than  a  sovereign.' 

The  cardinal  errors  of  the  Carlovingians  were  twofold  : 

1.  A  failure  to  direct  the  revolution,  working  itself  out  in  pro- 
cess of  time,  which  they  might  have  done.  They  tried  to  stem 
the  current  and  hence  were  swept  where  the  current  listed. 

2.  A  failure  to  confine  themselves  to  the  limits  assigned  by 
treaty  of  Verdun.  The  bauble  of  empire  was  too  attractive  to 
Charles  the  Bald.  Lothar  wasted  his  strength  in  a  vain  effort  to 
recover  Lotharingia.      He   asserted  the  sterile  pretensions  of  a 

•Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  28. 


4  INTRODUCTION. 

bygone  royalty,  instead  of  seeking  to  keep  that  that  he  had  a 
compact  whole.  It  was  his  interest  to  keep  the  royal  domain,  as 
much  as  possible  a  solid  political  entity,  with  a  vast  circumscrip- 
tion of  feudal  groups.  A  homogeneous  territorial  basis  for 
royalty  would  have  been  the  surest  and  most  material  aid  for  a 
gradual  and  progressive  increase  of  royal  power.  But  a  solid 
territorial  basis  is  exactly  what  the  Carlovingians  lacked,  and 
exactly  what  their  successors  had.  The  Carlovingians  were,  in 
987,  neither  proprietors  nor  vassals.  Louis  V.  was  lord  of  Laon, 
but  only  a  tenant  at  will,'  while  Hugh  Capet  was  proprietor  of 
a  goodly  portion  of  Gaul.  This  central  position  of  his  domain 
was  a  most  substantial  fact  in  his  favor.  The  territorial  dispro- 
portion between  the  positions  of  the  two  was  what  shifted  the 
balance  of  power,  at  Senlis,  on  that  day  in  July  987,  for  Hugh 
Capet  had  lands,  money  and  men.' 

The  election  of  Hugh  Capet  was  not  a  political  and  social 
revolution,  assuring  the  triumph  of  the  feudal  polity,  much  less  a 
national  movement.  It  was  hardly  more  than  a  change  of 
dynasty,  inspired  and  realized  by  the  church  in  order  to  establish 
in  the  hands  of  a  powerful  feudal  family  the  Romano-Frank 
ecclesiastical  monarchy  of  the  west  Carlovingians.  The  revolu- 
tion of  987  made  the  Frank  monarchy  (for  it  was  not  yet  French) 
a  vivid  reality  and  not  a  phantom.  As  that  was,  it  was,  a  mon- 
archy by  divine  right,  absolute  in  principle  and  theoretically  unit- 
ing the  powers  and  prerogatives  of  sovereignty.  It  cannot  be 
said  that  the  accession  of  the  house  of  Capet  to  the  throne 
marks  the  beginning  of  a  new  monarchy  in  harmony  with  the  new 
social  state.     The  view  that  the  revolution  of  987  was  meant  to 

'Richer,  II.,  51. 

2  "  Two  of  the  great  rivers  of  Gaul,  the  Seine  and  the  Loire,  flowed  through 

the  royal  domains,  but  the  king  was  wholly  cut  off  from  the  sea Thus 

surrounded  by  their  own  vassals  the  early  kings  of  the  house  of  Paris  had  far 
less  dealings  with  powers  beyond  their  own  kingdom  than  their  Carlovingian 
predecessors.  They  were  thus  able  to  make  themselves  the  great  power  of 
Gaul  before  they  stood  forth  in  a  wide  field  as  one  of  the  powers  of  Europe." 
Freeman,  Hist.  Geog.,  I.,  3  ff. 

On  the  extent  of  Hugh  Capet's  lands  and  the  character  of  the  ducal  title 
see  Pfister,  Le  Rigne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  livre  II.,  chap.  iii. 


INTRODUCTION.  5 

harmonize,  and  so  did  the  unity  of  the  realm  with  the  partition 
of  sovereignty,  that  it  was  the  simultaneous  and  equal  expression 
of  each,  is  plausible,  but  not  true.  Hugh  Capet  and  his  suc- 
cessors, in  word  and  deed,  sought  to  act  as  kings,  and  did  so, 
save  in  so  far  as  they  were  limited  by  the  intervention  of  the 
great  barons.  But  they  were  wise  enough  not  to  try  to  do  more 
than  they  were  able.  They  knew  their  powers  and  were  content 
to  exercise  them  within  the  limits  of  efficiency. 

The  accident  of  birth  deprived  the  early  Capetians  of  that 
"divinity  which  doth  hedge  a  king" — that  impalpable  force 
which  time  alone  can  bring  —  but  this  moral  deficiency  was 
largely  compensated  for  by  the  material  power  at  their  command. 
The  barons  elected  Odo  and  Rudolph  and  finally  Hugh,  because 
each  united  material  possession  and  moral  force.  When  Hugh 
was  elected,  he  became  heir  to  all  the  imprescriptible  rights  and 
indefinable  privileges  which  attended  his  predecessor. 

"  The  king  had  a  whole  arsenal  of  rights :  Old  rights  of 
Carlovingian  royalty,  preserving  the  remembrance  of  imperial 
power,  which  the  study  of  the  Roman  law  was  to  resuscitate, 
transforming  these  apparitions  into  formidable  realities  ;  old  rights 
conferred  by  coronation  which  were  impossible  to  define  and 
hence  incontestable ;  and  rights  of  suzerainty,  newer  and  more 
real,  which  were  definitely  determined  and  codified,  as  feudalism 
developed,  and  which  joined  to  the  other  rights  mentioned 
above,  made  the  king  proprietor  of  France.  These  are  the  ele- 
ments that  Capetian  royalty  contributed  to  the  play  of  fortuitous 
circumstances.  Everything  turned  to  his  profit :  the  miseries  of 
the  church,  which,  in  the  midst  of  a  violent  society  claimed  the 
royal  protection,  from  one  end  of  the  kingdom  to  the  other,  and 
also  the  efforts  of  the  middle  classes  to  be  admitted  with  defined 

rights  into  feudal  society His  (the  king's)  authority  was 

thus  exercised  outside  the  limits  of  his  own  particular  domain, 
throughout  the  whole  kingdom."  ' 

The  monarchy  founded  by  Hugh  Capet  partook  of  a  double 
character.     He  was  the  greatest  feudal  lord  on  the  soil  of   Gaul 

'Lavisse,  General  View  of  Political  History  of  Europe.  (English  Transla- 
tion, New  York,  1891,  p.  61.) 


6  INTRODUCTION. 

before  he  inherited  the  domain  of  the  ancient  kings,  their  rights, 
and  the  prestige  attached  to  the  idea  of  royalty.  Thus  when  he 
became  king  he  was  stronger  than  his  immediate  predecessors. 
He  was  the  heir  of  past  power  and  place,  with  also,  be  it  said,  the 
deficiencies  attending  that  estate  in  later  years  ;  but  he  was  also  the 
holder  of  inchoate  and  potential  rights,  destined  to  be  worked 
out  in  the  process  of  feudalization  and  the  progress  of  kingship. 
The  edifice  of  Capetian  royal  authority  of  which  Robert  the 
Strong  laid  the  foundation,  and  to  which  Hugh  Capet  annexed 
the  capstone,  was  made  of  various  elements. 

1.  It  consisted  of  the  mass  of  proprietary  rights,  which  were 
bound  up  in  the  sheaf  of  his  feudal  superiority,  whether  as 
immediate  or  indirect  lord. 

2.  It  comprised  all  the  historic  rights  and  privileges  of  the 
former  Carlovingian  kings  —  political  and  ecclesiastical,  theo- 
retical and  actual. 

3.  Hugh  Capet's  title  of  dux  Francorum,  conferred  new 
rights  of  a  particular  character,  which  in  987  were  blended  with 
his  royal  authority. 

Although  predominantly  feudal,  the  French  monarchy  had  a 
double  character.  Its  theories  and  its  practices  were  to  a  consid- 
erable degree  royal.  In  addition  to  those  old  rights  of  Carlo- 
vingian royalty  ;  in  addition  to  other  ancient  rights  conferred  by 
coronation  and  the  newer  and  more  real  rights  of  suzerainty, 
there  were  certain  specific  rights  which  the  king  had  from  the 
beginning:  (i)  The  nominal  if  not  efficient  right  of  regulating 
public  benefices.  (2)  The  ascription  of  public  authority.'  (3) 
The  regale,  too,  was  less  a  feudal  than  a  royal  prerogative. 

The  king's  ecclesiastical  sovereignty  conveyed  in  the  term 
regale  was  never  so  divided  as  his  political  authority.  Some 
remnants  of  supremacy  were  left  in  localities  not  forming  a 
portion  of  the  royal  domain.  This  state  of  things  was  a  result 
of  the  historical  combination  of  circumstances.     The  church  was 

' "  It  was  accepted,  theoretically  as  a  fundamental  principle,  that  no 
crown  vassal  could  lawfully  carry  on  war,  otherwise  than  immediately  under  his 
sovereign  or  by  royal  command"  (Palgrave,  History  of  England  and  Nor- 
mandy, III.,  52). 


INTRODUCTION.  7 

the  depository  of  the  Roman  tradition  of  unity  and  centraliza- 
tion, taken  up  and  continued  by  the  Merovingians  and  Austra- 
sians,  which  in  the  form  of  a  semi-ecclesiastical  imperial  authority 
culminated  in  Charles  the  Great.  In  the  break-up  of  the  Empire, 
this  regalian  principle  escaped  the  shipwreck  of  the  Carlovingian 
dynasty  owing  to  the  integrity  of  the  ecclesiastical  constitution 
which  preserved  the  lines  of  bishoprics  and  metropolitanates. 
The  Church,  in  spite  of  feudal  infiltration,  was  less  impaired 
than  any  other  institution  and  received  a  large  accession  of 
power  in  the  tenth  century  when  the  revolution  of  987  was 
carried  to  a  successful  issue  by  the  great  churchmen  of  Gaul. 
Thereby  it  was  predetermined  that  the  church  and  the  king 
should  cooperate  in  the  development  of  the  French  monarchy. 

This  relation  existing  between  the  throne  and  the  Galilean 
Church  was  never  positively  broken.  The  bond  was  often 
severely  strained  but  it  was  never  ruptured.  Meanwhile,  the 
kings,  being  defenders  of  the  church  in  their  realm  against  the 
turbulence  and  avarice  of  the  baronage,  insisted  that  royal  juris- 
diction applied  alike  to  secular  and  ecclesiastical  affairs.  In  the 
eleventh  century,  however,  the  royal  power  reached  its  lowest 
point  and  feudal  usurpations  grew  more  common,  so  that,  owing 
to  continued  vexations,  the  kings  came  to  recognize  the  right  of 
the  bishops  with  their  chapters,  the  chapters  with  the  abbeys,  the 
archdeacons  with  the  prevots  or  canons  of  the  churches.  But 
the  rights  of  each  party  were  so  illy  defined  in  the  Middle  Ages, 
their  efficacy  depended  so  much  upon  personal  energy  and  will, 
that  the  crown  never  lost  absolutely,  nor  did  the  clergy  or  great 
lay  lords  ever  gain  wholly,  the  disputed  prerogative.' 

One  naturally  recurs  to  Germany  in  considering  this  question 
of  the  regale.  It  was  not  due  to  the  good  character  of  the 
Galilean  bishops,  when  compared  with  their  German  brethren, 
that  Gaul  was  spared  the  conflict  that  rent  the  empire  asunder. 
In  France  the  pope  already  had  a  measure  of  authority  and  was 
therewith  content ;  while  in  Germany  he  was  driven  to  antagon- 
ism because  the  imperiousness  of  emperors  like  Henry  III.  abso- 

'  Revue  Hist.,  XLII.  (1890).  Langlois,  Les  Origines  du  Parlenient  de 
Paris,  87. 


8  INTRODUCTION. 

lutely  barred  him  out.  Another  reason  will  also  explain  the 
difference  between  Gaul  and  Germany  in  this  quarrel.  In 
Germany,  «// the  bishoprics  were  at  the  disposal  of  the  emperor. 
In  Gaul,  this  right  was  distributed  among  the  feudal  lords. 
Thus  the  power  of  the  king  over  the  church  was  less  redoubt- 
able, and  the  pope  having  less  to  fear,  had  less  cause  to  contest 
the  royal  prerogative.  This  comparative  immunity  afforded  the 
French  kings  an  opportunity  to  develop  their  ecclesiastical 
authority  to  such  a  point  that  when  the  popes  at  last  did  try  to 
assert  Gregorian  pretensions,  his  own  power  was  shivered  for 
his  pains. 

If  the  king's  position,  however,  differed  in  kind  and  not  in 
degree  merely  from  that  of  the  baronage,  the  king  was  yet,  at  the 
same  time,  by  his  quality  as  suzerain,  by  his  official  and  private 
relations  with  the  aristocracy,  profoundly  involved  in  the  mesh 
of  the  feudal  regime.  His  suzerainty  even  was  for  a  long  time 
more  theoretical  than  real.  The  Capetian  monarchy  so  far  sub- 
mitted to  the  seigneurial  regime  as  to  become  far  more  feudal  than 
royal.  Yet  the  theory  of  royal  authority  remained  with  the 
monarchy.  In  the  tenth  and  eleventh  centuries  feudal  force 
was  stronger  than  royal  theory.  But  the  day  came  with  Louis 
VI.,  and  even  Louis  VII.,  weak  as  he  was,  and  Philip  Augustus, 
when  the  acts  of  the  crown  began  to  modify  the  feudal  regime. 
Then  the  theories  were  active  sources  of  power,  for  they  gave  the 
monarchy  a  basis  of  legality  upon  which  to  operate.' 

The  feudal  regime  in  Gaul  attained  its  ultimate  form  in  the 
eleventh  century.  But  it  is  not  to  be  forgotten  that  epochs  and 
eras  shade  into  one  another.  There  are  few  cataclysms  in  his- 
torical development  like  the  swift  volcanic  formations  of  the 
geologic  world.  History  works  itself  out  in  a  series  of  degrada- 
tions and  a  corresponding  series  of  ascensions ;  on  the  stepping- 
stones  of  its  dead  self  the  world  rises  to  higher  things.     We  are 

*  There  is  no  philosophical  study,  in  English,  of  these  features  of  the 
Capetian  monarchy.  The  reader  is  referred  to  Luchaire,  Inst.  Alon.,  I.,  livre  I. 
Flach,  Les  Origines  de  Vancienne  France,  Vol.  I.,  which  contains  a  good  deal  of 
value,  but  the  observations  are  scattered.  The  best  account  is  Pfister,  Le  Rigne 
de  Robert  le  Pieux,  livre  II. 


INTRODUCTION.  9 

apt  to  believe  that  the  era  of  the  Carlovingian  decline  was 
chaotic ;  and  yet  there  are  a  few  rare  lights  traversing  the  gloom 
of  that  gigantic  melee  of  peoples,  and  races,  and  languages,  and 
manners,  and  faiths,  and  institutions.  The  tangled  star-dust  of 
a  dissolving  world  rounds  into  new  forms,  and  finally  a  new 
world  emerges,  occupying  the  centuries  lying  between  the  ninth 
and  the  fifteenth  centuries,  /.  <?.,  the  six  centuries  of  feudal 
Europe. 

We  are  apt  to  think  of  feudalism  as  a  hard  and  fast  mould 
into  which  Europe  was  poured  and  held,  as  in  a  strait-jacket. 
Yet  the  real  truth  is  that  the  characteristic  of  the  age  is  its 
instability.  The  relations  of  man  and  man  in  the  same  region 
differ.  This  particularism  everywhere  dominant  makes  every  case 
an  exception.  The  relation  of  man  and  man  has  not  the  force 
of  a  sanctioned  principle.  Local  customs  are  not  written  ;  they 
are  essentially  mobile  until  they  are  hardened  into  form  by  the 
will  of  some  petty  despot.  And  yet  out  of  this  reign  of  individual 
absolutism,  circumscribed  perhaps  by  the  banlietie  merely,  was  to 
come  forth  an  absolutism  the  most  absolute,  and  circumscribed 
only  by  the  limits  of  France.  The  history  of  the  transition  from 
the  scattered  sovereignty  of  Hugh  Capet  to  the  self-centred 
absolutism  of  Louis  XIV.  is  the  history  of  the  progress  of  a 
policy  never  exceeded  for  consistency  of  execution,  craft  in 
application  and  patience  in  development. 

Because  the  French  monarchy  did  become  so  absolute  we  are 
apt  to  believe  it  became  so  by  sheer  force.  The  word  "absolute" 
is  misleading  —  we  think  of  tyrants  like  Ivan  the  Terrible  of 
Russia,  and  the  praetorian  guard  of  the  Caesars.  But  the  French 
absolutism  was  not  built  up,  like  the  Roman  imperium,  by  the 
power  of  the  sword.'  We  are  apt  to  think  that  the  king  grew 
strong  because,  as  chance  availed,  he  usurped  the  right  to  do  such 
and  such  a  thing.  But  the  French  monarchy  was  a  reign  of  law 
throughout.  The  reign  of  Louis  IX.  was  splendid  in  its  achieve- 
ments, yet  he  never  took  one  ounce  of  new  power  or  an  ascrip- 
tion of  authority,  or  one  rood  of  land,  without  legal  sanction. 

'The  Ordonnance  of  Orleans  (1439)  of  Charles  VII.  is  really  almost  the 
conclusion  of  absolutism. 


I  o  INTRO  D  UCTION. 

Even  the  unscrupulous  kings  like  Philip  Augustus  and  Philip  the 
Fair  covered  their  conduct  with  the  guise  of  law.  By  fictions  and 
technicalities  they  contrived  to  give  the  monarchy  a  sanction  for 
its  acts.  This  strictly  legal  character  of  the  development  of  the 
French  monarchy  is  a  point  which  has  received  far  too  little 
attention.  It  is  essential  to  keep  this  legal  phase  in  mind,  for 
only  by  so  doing  can  its  evolution  be  truly  understood. 

In  the  feudal  principle,  however,  lay  alike  the  weakness  and 
the  strength  of  the  early  Capetian  monarchy.  Jealousy  of  the 
over-lord  on  the  part  of  a  half  hundred  petty  princes  forced  the 
crown  to  move  guardedly.  But  in  the  slowness  of  the  growth 
of  the  crown  was  the  assurance  of  its  permanence.  Absorption 
of  powers  on  the  part  of  royalty  was  so  gradual  that  the  barons 
failed  to  see,  until  too  late,  the  import  of  a  movement,  which, 
while  evolutionary  in  process,  was  revolutionary  in  effect. 

The  increase  of  royal  power  in  France  involved  three  pro- 
cesses :  (i)  The  recognition  of  the  hereditary  principle  in  succes- 
sion. (2)  The  transfer  of  all  sovereign  functions  to  the  crown. 
(3)  The  incorporation  of  fiefs. 

In  the  tenth  century  the  principle  of  succession  by  inherit- 
ance had  hardly  enough  force  to  legitimize  it  in  the  eyes  of  men 
of  the  time.  A  curious  phenomenon  comes  to  light.  Hugh 
Capet  became  king  by  elective  right,  the  address  of  Archbishop 
Adalberon  setting  forth  the  legitimacy  of  elective  monarchy,  and 
repudiating  the  doctrine  of  hereditary  right  to  the  throne.'  And 
yet  we  see  that  at  once  the  progress  of  events  begins  gradually  to 
push  aside  the  theory.  The  kings  of  the  Capetian  house  during 
more  than  three  centuries  had  male  offspring;  and,  as  always 
happens,  out  of  the  fact  developed  a  law — that  of  hereditary  suc- 
cession. But  the  uncertainty  of  the  right  explains  why  the  first 
six  kings  compromised,  so  to  speak,  with  the  elective  principle, 
and  took  the  precaution  of  always  securing  the  coronation  of 
their  successors  in  their  lifetime  (cooptation),''  until   by  the  time 

'  Richer  IV.,  c.  11. 

a  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  59,  points  out  that  association  upon  the  throne  was 
also  practiced  by  the  later  Carlovinglans,  at  least  by  Lothar  in  979. 

Nevertheless,  the   idea  of   hereditary   right   excited  a  certain   degree   of 


INTRODUCTION.  1 1 

of  Philip  Augustus  the  triumph  of  the  hereditary  principle  in 
succession  over  the  principle  of  election  was  assured  beyond 
peradventure. 

The  second  element  — the  transfer  of  royal  functions  to  the 
crown  —  took  place  simultaneously  with  the  third  —  that  of  the 
incorporation  of  fiefs.  As  royal  feudalism  grew,  the  kings  seized 
the  chance  of  annexing  lands  immediately  adjoining  the  duchy 
of  France.  As  the  means  of  exercising  sovereignty  increased,  the 
territorial  extent  of  sovereignty  increased  also.' 

The  history  of  feudal  France  comprises  three  periods  : 

1.  The  period  of  dominant  feudalism  (887-1108) — that  of  the 
later  Carlovingians  and  early  Capetians. 

2.  The  period  of  the  triumph  of  the  hereditary  principle  in 
succession  to  the  throne,  and  that  in  which  feudalism  is  seri- 
ously impaired  by  the  crown  (1108-1314) — from  the  reign  of 
Louis  le  Gros  to  the  death  of  Philip  the  Fair. 

3.  The  triumph  of  the  absolute  monarchy  and  the  evolution 
of  the  modern  state  (1314-1483) — from  the  death  of  Philip  the 
Fair  to  the  death  of  Louis  XL 

It  will  be  expedient,  in  view-oL  the  dissertation  before  us,  to 
glance  at  the  political  relations  of  the  states  of  Europe  in  the 
twelfth  century.  "There  were  certain  great  bundles  of  states  con- 
nected by  a  dynastic  or  by  a  national  unity  —  the  Kingdom  of 
France,  the  Empire  of  Germany,  the  Christian  States  of  Spain  .  .  . 
the  still  solid  remnant  of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  the  well-compacted 
dominions  of  the  Normans  in  Apulia  and  Sicily.  Of  these  states, 
France,  Germany  and  Spain  were  busily  striving  for  consolida- 

opposition  down  to  a  late  day.  This  testamentary  character  of  the  French 
crown  is  a  point  that  has  not  been  enough  emphasized. 

In  the  encyclical  letter  of  Ivo  of  Chartres  (H.  F.,  XV.,  144)  announcing 
the  coronation  of  Louis  VI.  notice  is  taken  of  a  complaint  in  Flanders  tha't 
the  doctrine  of  election  had  been  violated.  On  the  dangers  incurred  by  the 
monarchy  at  the  accession  of  Louis  VI.  owing  to  the  coalition  of  the  barons  in 
favor  of  a  pretender,  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  L,  p.  82-3,  and  notes.  Orderic 
Vitalis  (Book  XIII.,  c.  12)  notices  the  discontent  of  some  of  the  barons,  and 
clergy  even,  owing  to  the  association  of  Louis  VII.  with  his  father. 

'  Cf.  Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  England,  I.,  187,  where  the  opposite  process  is 
noticed,of  England. 


1 2  INTROD  UCTION. 

tion  or  against  dissolution.  .  .  .  Constantinople  was  far  removed 
from  the  interests  of  Christendom ;  her  face  set  always  eastward 
in  church  and  state.  The  Norman  state  in  Apulia  and  Sicily  was 
the  best  organized  and  most  united  kingdom,  and  this  taken  in 
conjunction  with  the  wealth,  splendor,  ability  and  maritime 
superiority  of  the  kings,  gave  it  an  importance  much  greater  than 
was  due  to  its  extent.  All  the  great  powers,  with  the  exception 
of  the  last,  had  their  energies  for  the  most  part  employed  in 
domestic  struggles,  and  were  prevented  by  the  interposition  of  small 
semi-neutral  countries  from  any  extensive  or  critical  collision, 
whilst  much  of  their  naturally  aggressive  spirit  was  carried  off  to 
the  east.  Between  the  Normans  and  the  de  facto  empire  lay  the 
debatable  and  unmanageable  estates  of  the  .papacy,  and  the  bul- 
wark of  Lombardy,  itself  a  task  for  the  whole  imperial  energies 
of  the  empire.  Between  the  same  empire  and  France  lay  the 
remains  of  the  ancient  Lotharingian  and  Burgundian  kingdoms, 
from  the  North  Sea  to  the  Mediterranean,  hardly  even  more  than 
nominally  imperial — a  region  destined  to  be  the  battle  ground 
of  many  generations  as  soon  as  the  rival  nations  should  have  consol- 
idated themselves  and  girt  up  their  strength.  But  at  present  by 
broad  intervening  barriers  and  by  constant  occupation  at  home, 
now  in  the  humiliation  of  aspiring  vassals,  now  in  the  struggle  for 
existence  against  the  overwhelming  power  of  the  greater  feuda- 
tories, now  in  the  maintenance  of  peace  between  rivals,  the  two 
great  representatives  of  the  resurrection  of  European  life,  the 
Kingdoms  of  France  and  Germany  were  kept  at  arms'  length  from 
each  other.'"  Thus  in  the  twelfth  century  no  two  states  of 
Europe  were  in  immediate  contact  or  immediate  rivalry  save 
France  and  England,  an  exception  which  was  owing  to  the  acci- 
dent of  the  Norman  Conquest. 

Such  is  a  general  view  of  the  political  condition  of  Europe  in 
the  twelfth  century.  What  of  the  manner  of  life  of  the  men  of 
that  time?  Gaul  in  the  early  twelfth  century  was  a  land  divided 
by  differences  of  race  not  yet  amalgamated ;  by  differences 
of  rule,    which    were    the    pretext  of    endless    wars ;    by  grow- 

'Stubbs.  The  "wonderful  preface"  to  Roger  of  Hoveden.  II.  LXX-I. 
(Rolls  Series.) 


INTRODUCTION.  1 3 

ing  differences  of  faith  even  —  true  forerunners  of  the  Reforma- 
tion. The  land  was  dotted  with  feudal  castles,  the  abbeys  were 
veritable  fortresses.  Riot  and  ruin  prevailed  beyond  the  pale  of 
the  castle  ;  the  country  was  sparsely  populated.  Agriculture  was 
nearly  impossible  save  in  the  narrow  circle  which  the  towns  might 
protect,  or  in  the  breadth  of  land  which  some  baron  of  more  than 
ordinary  power  and  insight  might  make  secure.  It  was  an  iron  age, 
when  one  must  be  either^Ji«.mmer  or  anvil.  Life  was  rude  and 
full  of  energy,  because  its  vigorous  requirements  killed  feeble 
organisms.  But  sometimes  these  iron  men  were  of  fine  temper. 
The  century  that  cast  up  in  ,'France  such  a  ruffian  as  Thomas  de 
Marie  also  brought  St.  Bernard  and  Abelard  to  light. 

In  such  a  time  did  Loui4  VI.  of  France,  the  first  ruler  of  the 
Capetian  house  to  make  the  theories  of  the  monarchy  active  sources 
of  power,  come  to  the  throne  which  his  father  had  humiliated  and 
dishonored.  Public  authority  was  dissolved,  law  defied,  con- 
fusion reigned.  The  state  needed  a  man  of  power  to  arrest  dis- 
solution, to  restore  law  and  to  rebuild  public  authority.  Like 
Edward  I.  he  might  be  a  man  of  constructive  genius  ;  like  Crom- 
well or  Cavour,  he  might  believe  in  some  great  militant  principle; 
he  must  accept  existing  conditions  and  know  how  to  turn  them  to 
best  account.  Such  a  man  was  Louis  VI.  of  France.  He  was 
neither  theorist  nor  fanatic.  He  knew  how  to  build  because  he 
knew  how  to  select  the  elements  of  strength  that  still  survived 
in  the  midst  of  the  surrounding  confusion  and  use  them  to  the 
best  advantage. 

The  new  Capetian  monarchy  in  spite  of  its  promise  and  its 
prediction  had  hitherto  failed.  The  king  was  supposed  to  be  the 
personification  of  justice.'  As  chief  of  the  kingdom  he  was 
charged  with  the  defense  of  the  realm.^  The  peace  of  the 
church  and  the  protection  of  the  feeble  and  oppressed  were  his  to 
maintain.3  These  duties,  with  the  possible  exception  of  King 
Hugh,  no   Capetian  had  yet  fulfilled.     The  crown  which  Philip 

'  Dedecet  enim  regem  transgredi  legem,  cum  et  rex  et  lex  eandem  imperandi 
excipiant  majestatem. — Suger,  50. 
"Brussel,  I.,  693,  868. 
3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  §  §  250,  460. 


«^\BRARy' 


1 4  INTROD  UC7I0N. 

left  to  his  noble  son  was  thus  far  from  being  a  kingly  one.  The 
realm  was  small.'  The  royal  power  was  lean  and  emaciated,' 
and  the  name  king  itself  sullied  and  tarnished.- 

Louis,  owing  to  the  weakness  and  mismanagement  had 
scarcely  any  tangible  basis  upon  which  to  rest  his  authority.  In 
the  sphere  of  direct  influence  he  was  confined  almost  entirely^ 
to  the  Ile-de- France,  and  even  here  the  barons  were  accustomed 
to  defy  the  crown  and  do  much  as  they  pleased.*  And  yet 
through  the  steady  application  of  an  authority  at  first  merely 
nominal,  he  constructed  at  last  a  compacted  political  organism ^ 

'  The  duchy  of  France  which  was  the  kernel  of  the  kingdom,  was  reduced, 
as  nearly  as  can  be  ascertained,  to  the  Ile-de-P>ance,  I'Orldanais,  the  French 
Vexin,  Eourges  with  the  neighboring  estates,  and  the  chattelany  of  Dun-le-Roi. 
(Luchaire, /«rf.  Af<?«.,  II.,  298.)  But  any  absolute  statement  of  the  extent  of  the 
realm  at  this  time  is  impossible,  as  the  crown  possessed  scattered  holdings  out- 
side of  what  has  generally  been  considered  the  royal  domain.  "The  former 
view  that  the  domain  was  a  compact  and  circumscribed  entity,  like  the  duchy 
of  Normandy,  has  been  abandoned  in  the  face  of  evidence  that,  beside  the  two 
hereditary  territories  of  the  Capetians,  .  .  .  the  monarchy  possessed  various 
scattered  holdings  in  territories  outside  of  what  has  usually  been  considered  the 
royal  domain." — Walker,  118  and  note  i.  Cf.  Luchaire, /mj/".  ^/(9«.,  I.,  89. 
According  to  Gaillard,  I.  185,  the  royal  domain,  at  this  time,  did  not  constitute 
one-twentieth  of  the  present  France. 

For  the  territorial  expansion  of  the  crown  under  Philip  I.  see  Luchaire, 
Inst.  Mon.  II.,  246-8.  On  the  purchase  of  Bourges,  see  Continuator  of  Aimon, 
H.  F.,  XL,  157.  Philip  I.  dreamed  of  real  dominion  south  of  the  Loire.  The 
importance  of  this  acquisition  is  given  by  Brussel  I.,  149,  166,  401.  Foulque 
Rechin  ceded  the  Gatinais  to  Philip  1.  in  order  to  assure  Philip's  neutrality  in 
his  absence. — H.  F.,  XL,  394. 

'  But  the  theory  of  royal  authority  still  remained  and  even  grew  under  the 
weaker  kings :  "  Rien  ne  prouve  mieux  1'  intensild  du  courant  qui  portait  alors 
(under  Philippe  le  Hardi)  la  France  vers  I'unit^  monarchique,  que  la  force 
croissante  de  la  royautd  sous  un  roi  faible." — Langlois,  Positions  des  thises  de 
FEcole  des  Chartes,  1885,  p.  96.  Published  in  book  form  under  the  title, 
Le  Eigne  de  Philippe  le  Hardi,  Paris,  1887. 

3  The  penetration  of  the  authority  of  the  crown  into  remote  fiefs  through 
the  right  of  regale  allowed  the  king  a  measure  of  authority  not  otherwise  possi- 
ble. On  the  regale,  in  extenso,  see  Phillips,  Urspntng  des  Regalienrechts  in 
Frankreich,  Halle,  1870. 

*Suger,  passim. 

s  Monod,  Revue  historique,  XLIL,  373. 


INTRODUCTION.  1 5 

over  which  a  genuine  sovereignty  prevailed.  To  him  the 
royal  power  was  the  instrument  of  justice.'  To  him  the  king 
was  the  incarnate  expression  of  the  will  of  the  state  —  the  person- 
ification of  its  invisible  majesty.*  With  these  lofty  conceptions 
of  the  royal  dignity,  Louis  united  the  most  intense  activity.^ 
He  appreciated  the  finer  advantages  to  be  derived  from  legal  and 
institutional  changes,  as  the  creation  of^  the  right  of  appeal,  and 
the  establishment  of  liege  homage  testify.* 

Thus  he  enlisted  to  his  support  all  forces,  new  and  old,  in 
government  and  society,  He  so  centralized  his  power  in  the 
Ile-de-France  that  his  successors  henceforth  enjoyed  its  undivided 
resources.  It  is  significant  that  he  added  nothing  to  the  territory 
of  France  until  the  very  last  year  of  his  life.  The  increase  of 
royal  authority  in  extension  was  conditioned  on  the  internal 
strengthening  of  the  regulative  power.  Louis  VL  was  content 
to  confine  his  energies  within  the  limits  of  ancient  Neustria. 
His  intervention  in  Bourbonnais  and  Auvergne,  and  certain 
dealings  in  Flanders,  Bourgogne  and  Languedoc  are  exceptional 
and  isolated  cases. ^  But  within  the  limits  prescribed,  there  was 
no  particular  jurisdiction  over  which  he  did  not  exercise  an 
influence.  The  feudal  aristocracy,  the  communes,  even  the 
church,  felt  the    directive    hand  of   the    monarchy.     With  him 

'Quia  fortissima  regum  dextra  offitii  jure  votivo,  tirannorum  audacia 
quotiens  eos  guerris  lacessiri  vident,  infinite  gratulantem  rapere,  pauperes  con- 
fundere,  ecclesias  destruere,  interpolata  licencia  quam  si  semper  liceret,  insanius 
inflammantur  malignorum  instar  spirituum,  qui  quos  timent  perdere  magis 
trucidant,  quos  sperent  retinere  omniflo  fovent,  fomenta  flammis  apponunt  ut 
infinite  crudelius  devorent. — Suger,  80-1. 

*Dedecetenim  regem  transgredi  legem,  cum  et  rex  et  lex  eandem  imperandi 
excipiant  majestatem. — Suger,  50. 

3  In  den  ersten  Generationen  dieses  Hauses,  vor  Erwerbung  der  Krone, 
finden  wir  lauter  tapfere  und  emporstrebende  Naturen.  Nach  denen  folgten 
andere,  die,  durch  Sinnesweise  und  Lage  friedfertig  gestimmt,  beinahe  einen 
priesterlichen  Charakter  trugen,  ilir  Konigthum  war  mehr  eine  Wiirde,  als  eine 
Macht ;  jetzt  unterveranderten  Umstanden  gehen  Manner  aus  ihmhervor,  welche 
den  Schwung  altgemeiner  Ideen  mit  Thatkraft  verbinden. — Ranke,  Werke, 
VIIL,  24. 

*  See  this  dissertation,  pp.  39-43. 

sLuchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  284. 


1 6  IN  TROD  UCTION. 

began  the  intensive  development  of  the  French  monarchy. 
Others  had  given  France  the  crown.  Louis  VI.  gave  the  king- 
ship.' Others  after  him  were  to  give  the  kingdom.  It  was 
Louis  VI.  who  made  possible  that  extensive  development  which 
characterized  the  reign  of  Philip  Augustus,  and  the  splendor  of 
the  Capetian  House  as  it  shone  forth  under  St.  Louis  and  Philip 
the  Fair. 

'  Louis  VI.  avait  donnd  a  la  couronne  une  suprdmatie  fdodale  r€ele.  Phil- 
lippe  Auguste  lui  procura  une  force  territoriale  disproportionnee  avec  celle  des 
grands  vassaux. — M.  Mignet,  Mem.  de  rAcad.  des  Sc.  mor.  et  pol.,  VI.,  709.  Cf. 
Luchaire,  Inst.  Man.,  II.,  255. 


CHAPTER  I. 

THE  WAR  OF  THE  VEXIN. 

"^  Louis,  or  Louis  Thibaud,  the  sixth  of  that  name  to  become 
king  of  France,  was  born,  probably,  in  the  latter  part  of  the  year 
1081.'  His  father,  Philip  I.,  was  deficient  in  energy  and  sunk 
in  sensual  indulgences.  These  traits  of  character  the  son  inher- 
ited, in  less  degree,  but  they  never  were  suffered  to  impair  the 
energy  of  his  intellect  or  will.  The  surname  "the  Fat  "(/^  Gros), 
by  which  Louis  VL  is  known  in  history,  is  a  stigma.  Such  a  title 
was  no  misnomor  with  a  monarch  like  Charles  the  Fat,  who  was 
lethargic  and  weak,  but  it  is  unjust  for  history  so  to  designate  one 
who  in  life  was  known  by  the  far  more  appropriate  soubriquets  of 
"the  Wide- Awake"  {reveille),  and  "the  Warlike"  {le  Battailleur). 
^~~~His  early  education  was  received  in  the  abbey^  of  St.  Denis,  where 
he  learned  to  know  and  appreciate  the  abilities  of  his  humbler 
school-fellow,  Suger,  afterwards  minister  of  the  crown,  regent  of 
France,  and  the  first  great  finance  minister  of  whom  she  can 
boast.* 

The  period  of  the  life  of  Louis  until  the  war  of  the  Vexin 
is  not  characterized  by  any  special  mention  by  the  chronicles. 
He  was  then  sixteen  years  of  age.^  The  war  was  insignificant  in 
political  results.'*  It  brought  no  practical  good  to  the  young 
Louis,  save  that  it  gave  him  training  for  the  larger  work  of  later 
years.     The  history  of   the  struggle  is  valuable,  however,  in  that 

'Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  i. 

*  It  is  said  that  Suger  was  the  first  to  perceive  that  the  vulgar  idiom  might 
be  employed  with  value  in  the  royal  chronicles.  The  fact  is  not  established,  but 
Suger  at  least  merits  a  high  place  in  the  role  of  French  historians. — Lacroix, 
Science  and  Literature  in  the  Middle  Ages,  English  trans.,  London,  1878,  p.  468. 

3  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  6. 

'» "  It  is  a  war  which  supplies  no  remarkable  instances,  personal  or 
political." — Freeman,  Nortnan  Conquest,  V.,  p.  lOl. 

17 


1 8  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

it  shows  clearly  the  weakness  of  France,  the  strength  of  the 
baronage,  and  gives  promise  of  a  national  spirit,  as  yet  unappre- 
hended. 

There  had  been  a  long-standing  quarrel  between  France  and 
Normandy  which  became  of  importance  only  towards  the  end  of 
the  Conqueror's  reign.'  While  the  general  ground  of  hostility 
was  Norman  jealousy  of  the  overlord  at  Paris,  the  established  pre- 
text was  the  question  of  supremacy  over  the  French  Vexin.*  Nor- 
man historians  claimed^  that  Henry  of  France  had  ceded  the 
strip  to  Robert  of  Normandy  in xeturn  for  help  of  arms  given  by 
the  latter,  and  that  William  the  Conqueror  had  failed  to  claim  it 
only  on  account  of  wider  interests  across  the  channel  and  in 
Maine/  Border  warfare  was,  therefore,  rife  and  the  Conqueror 
at  last  determined  to  put  a  stop  to  the  trouble  by  a  peremptory 
demand  for  the  disputed  tract.^  The  result  was  the  war  in  which 
he  met  his  death.  The  conditions  of  his  will  brought  peace  for 
a  time  by  the  separation  of  England  and  Normandy.  But  when 
all  Normandy  fell  to  Rufus,  a  dream  of  continental  empire  filled 
his  mind,*  and  England  was  forced  again  to  become  a  partner  in 
the    interests    at    stake    between   France   and    the    great    barrier 

'  See  Marion,  De  Normannoriim  ducum  aim  Capetianis  pacta  ruptaque 
societaie.     Paris,  1892. 

"On  the  acquisition  of  the  Vexin  by  Philip  I.  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  p. 
247. 

3  0rd.  Vit.  III.,  223. 

*  Ibid.  The  uncertain  feudal  relation  of  the  Vexin  was  further  aggravated 
by  the  conduct^  of  the  Count  of  the  Vexin,  who  held  a  unique  position  half  way 
between  baronage  and  hierarchy,  being  alike  a  vassal  and  a  patron  of  St. 
Denis,  while  in  his  style  he  pretended  perfect  independence. — Brussel,  I.,  542. 

SOrd.  Vit.  III.,  223. 

'  Dicebatur  equidem  vulgo  regem  ilium  superbum  et  impetuosum  aspirare 
ad  regnum  Francorum. — Suger,  p.  7. 

Ord.  Vit.  IV.,  80,  is  fuller  :  Maximam  jussit  classem  prseparari  et  ingentem 
equitatum  de  Anglia  secum  comitari,  ut  pelago  transfretato,  in  armis  ceu  leo 
supra  praedam  praesto  consisteret,  fratrem  ab  introitu  Neustrije  bello  abigeret, 
Aquitaniae  ducatum  pluribus  argenti  massis  emeret,  et  obstantibus  sibi  bello 
subactis,  usque  ad  Garumnam  fluvium  imperii  sui  fines  dilataret. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  Aquitaine  of  those  days  lay  north  of  the 
Garonne  river ;  the  Aquitaine  of  which  Caesar  speaks  is  southern  Aquitaine. 


WAR  OF  THE  VEXIN.  19 

province.  By  gaining  the  Vexin  Rufus  would  deprive  France 
of  frontier  protection,'  and  make  way  for  further  encroach- 
ment. 

But  the  English  king  had  a  very  different  person  to  deal  with 
from  the  unworthy  Philip,  who  had  opposed  the  conqueror.'  In 
1092  Philip  had  granted  to  his  son  Louis  the  rule  of  the  Vexin, 
with  the  towns  of  Mantes  and  Pontoise.^  Five  years  later  Rufus 
made  his  3emand  of  tK"e  Fr"ench"king,  specifying  Mantes,  Chau- 
mont  and  Pontoise,''  and  the  war  began  in  serious  earnest. 

The  strength  of  William  lay  in  the  vast  sums  of  money  at  his 
disposal.  The  weakness  of  France  lay  in  the  venality  and  disloy- 
alty of  the  border  barons  and  in  the  impoverished  condition  of  the 
monarchy.^  But  to  this  was  opposed  the  amazing  energy  of 
Louis  and  the  beginning  of  a  French  national  sentiment.  Suger 
justifies  his  hero  by  the  doctrine  that  it  is  not  right  'Or  natural 
that  Frenchmen — he  does  not  say  France — be  subject  to  English- 
men, or  Englishmen  to  Frenchmen;*  and  even  Ordericus  Vitalis 
could  say  of  the  brave  men  of  the  Vexin  who  fell  in  this  war  fight- 

^  Margiis  regni  collimitans. —  Suger,  6. 

^  Louis  le  Gros  was  probably  associated  with  his  father  on  the  throne  in 
HOC  or  iioi. — Luchaire,  Annales,  Appendix  III.  Cf.  Acad,  des  Inscrip.,  etc., 
IV.,  489-508  (1805).  Louis,  when  rex  designator,  used  a  seal  which  indicated 
his  martial  character.  In  it  he  is  represented  clad  in  military  habit,  astride  a 
horse,  with  a  lance  in  his  right  hand,  in  his  left  the  reins.  Mabillon,  p.  594, 
has  a  description  of  seal  (1107)  and  on  p.  427  is  a  picture  of  the  seal.  On  the 
position  and  influence  of  the  crown  prince,  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I., 
I37-I43- 

3  Ludovico  filio  suo  consensu  Francorum  Pontisariam  et  Maduntum  totumque 
comitatum  Vilcassinum  donavit,  totiusque  regni  curam,  dum  primo  flore  juven- 
tutis  pubesceret,  commisit. — Ord.  Vit.  III.,  390. 

■*Ord  Vit.,  IV.,  20.  Suger,  6,  states  the  fact  without  mentioning  the  for- 
tresses. According  to  Palgrave  (IV.,  626)  Rufus  asserted  a  claim  through  his 
mother  Matilda  to  the  Capetian  crown,  but  as  usual,  he  cites  no  authority  for 
the  statement.    Suger,  7,  gives  a  different  claim. 

5  Ille  (Rufus)  opulentus  et  Anglorum  thesaurorum  profusus  mirabilisque 
militum  mercator  et  solidator ;  iste  (Louis)  deculii  expers,  patri  qui  benefitiis 
regni  utebatur  parcendo,  sola  bone  indolis  industria  militiam  cogebat,  audacter 
resistebat. — Suger,  6. 

*Nec  fas  nee  naturale  est  Francos  Anglis,  immo  Anglos  Francis  subici. — 
Ibid.,  7. 


20  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

ing  for  their  prince-count — Seseque pro  defensione  patrice  et  gloria 
gentis  sucE,  ad  mortem  usque  inimicis  objecerunt.^ 

Louis  had  neither  men  nor  money ;  while  Rufus  was  able  to 
ransom  English  captives,  Louis'  prisoners  had  no  hope  of  deliv- 
erance save  in  sacrificing  honor  for  liberty  and  taking  oath  to 
fight  against  their  natural  overlord.*  To  the  venality  of  the  bor- 
der baronage  William  addressed  himself  directly.  The  strategic 
situation  of  the  castles  of  many  of  these  petty  lords  made  their 
allegiance  of  importance  to  either  side.  Of  these,  Guy-of-the- 
Rock,  the  lord  of  La  Roche  Guyon,  was  the  most  notorious.^ 

Count  Robert  of  Meulan,  whose  fortress  was  further  up  the 
Seine,  was  another  who  for  gold  made  a  straight  path  for  the 
English  king  into  France.'*  Louis'  energy,  for  one  so  young,  is 
astonishing.  He  went  far  to  the  south  for  support.  He  drew 
on  Berry,  Burgundy  and  even  Auvergne  for  knights,^  and  at  last, 
although  he  had  as  often  to  flee  as  to  fight,*  he  brought  the  Red 
King  to  a  stand.  William  had  dreamed  of  an  Anglican  conquest 
of   France,  but  in- spite  of  the  aid  of  so  formidable  an  ally  as 

'  Ord  Vit.,  IV.,  24. 

» Verum  Anglie  captos  redempcionem  celeium  militaris  stipendii  accele- 
ravit  anxietas,  Francorum  vero  longa  diuturni  carceris  maceravit  prolixitas, 
nee  ullo  modo  evinculari  potuerunt,  donee,  suscepta  ejusdem  regis  Anglie  militia, 
hominio  obligati,  regnum  et  regem  impugnare  et  turbare  jurejurando  firmave- 
runt. — Suger,  7. 

3Suger  describes  the  rock,  chap.  xvi.  See  Freeman's  William  Rufus,  II., 
180-1. 

'•  Robertus  itaque,  comes  de  Mellento  in  suis  munitionibus  Anglos  suscepit, 
et  patentem  eis  in  Galliam  discursum  aperuit. — Ord  Vit.,  IV.,  21.  In  all  this 
treachery,  one  baron,  whom  no  price  could  buy,  deserves  to  be  mentioned. 
Helias  de  St.  Sidoine.  His  castle  of  Bures  on  the  Dieppe  or  Arques  River  was 
an  effectual  bar  to  Rufus'  scheme  of  cutting  off  England  and  the  Gifford  barony. 
Rufus  at  last  captured  the  castle,  and  so  highly  did  he  think  of  his  capture  that 
he  transported  the  whole  garrison  to  England.  One  is  glad  to  know,  however, 
that  Helias  himself  escaped.     Palgrave,  IV.,  405. 

5  Videres  juvenem  celerrimum  modo  Bituricensium,  modo  Alvernorum, 
modo  Burgundiorum  militari  manu  transvolare  fines  nee  idcirco  tardius,  si  ei 
ignotescat,  Vilcassinum  regredi,  et  cum  trecentis  aut  quingentis  militibus  fortis- 
sime  refragari,  et  ut  dubius  se  habet  belli  eventus,  modo  cedere,  modo  fugare. — 
Suger,  6. 

^  Supra. 


fVA/?  OF  THE  VEXIN.  21 

William  of  Aquitaine,'  he  could  not  wrest  away  the  Vexin.  A 
truce  was  made  (1098)  which  was  turned  into  a  real  peace  by  his 
death  two  years  later,  and  the  dream  of  an  Anglican  conquest 
slumbered  for  two  centuries.* 

'  Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  25. 

^Velly  (t.  iii.,  40)  makes  this  war  the  beginning  of  the  national  rivalry  of 
France  and  England.  It  began  in  the  end  of  the  year  1097,  was  waged  most 
intensely  in  September,  1098,  and  ended  with  William's  return  to  England  in 
1099. — Luchaire,  Annates,  Introd.,  xxxvii.,  ff ;   Cf.  No.  6. 

A  full  account  of  the  war  will  be  found  in  Freeman's  William  Rufus,  II., 
171-90.  Gaillard,  Histoire  de  la  Rivalite  de  la  France  et  de  V Angleterre,  t.  I.,, 
part  I.,  chap.  3. 


CHAPTER  II. 

THE  LIBERATION  OF  THE  REALM. 

The  War  of  the  Vexin  Louis  fought  as  Crown  Prince. 
Shortly  after  the  peace,  by  the  consent  of  the  barons  he  was  asso- 
ciated with  his  father  on  the  throne.'  In  1108  Philip  died  and"^^ 
Louis  at  once  and  without  any  serious  protest^  assumed  the  full 
direction  of  the  monarchy .^  The  problem  before  him  was  syn- 
thetic —  to  unite  in  the  kingship  all  the  scattered  elements  of  sover- 
eignty diffused  throughout  the  feudal  state.'*  The  feudal  regime 
had  reached  its  apogee.  The  monarchy  retained  hardly  more  than 
the  ascription  of  authority .^  The  greater  portion  of  the  barons 
were  not  attached  to  the  king  by  any  precise  homage  or  vigorous 
loyalty.  The  quasi-sovereignty  of  the  dukes  and  counts  formed 
a  wall  between  their  vassals  and  the  king,  and  there  was,  there- 
fore, no  point  of  contact  between  the  monarchy  and  seigneurs  of 
the  second  degree.*  Even  under  Philip  Augustus  the  royal  right 
to  enter  a  fief  not  held  immediately  of  the  crown  was  precarious.' 

'  Luchaire,  Anttales,  No.  8. 
^    =In  the  encyclical  letter  of    Ivo  of   Chartres,  H.   F.,  XV.,   144,  notice  is 
taken  of  a  slight  discontent. 

3  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  57. 

*"L'histoire  de  France  c'est  Thistoire  de  la  conquete  de  la  France  par  la 
royautd,  la  substitution  de  I'unitd  a  la  variety  f^odale,  de  la  centralisation  a  f^ddra- 
tion." — M.  Gabriel  Monod,  Revue  hist.,  Sept.-Oct.  1893,  p.  loi. 

5  Luchaire,  Manuel,  243. 

^  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  29,     On  the  general  subject  see  Ibid.  II.,  21-36. 

7  Luchaire,  Manuel,  257;  Walker,  109.  In  the  first  article  of  the  joint 
constitution  (1209  or  1210)  between  Philip  Augustus  and  the  grand  barons  of 
the  realm  the  difference  between  direct  and  rear  vassals  is  clearly  given  : — Quic- 
quid  tenetur  de  domino  ligie,  vel  alio  modo,  si  contigerit  per  successionem 
heredum  vel  quocunque  alio  modo  divisionem  inde  fieri,  quocunque  modo  fiat, 
omnes  qui  de  feodo  illo  tenebunt,  de  domino  feodo  principaliter  et  nulla  modo 
tenebunt,  sicut  unus  antea  tenebat  priusquam  divisio  esset  facta.--(Brussel,  I., 
22 


LIBERATION  OF  THE  REALM.  23 

The  relation  of  the  great  lords  to  their  vassals  was  almost  simi- 
lar in  kind  to  that  which  the  barons  themselves  sustained  towards 
the  king.  Even  fiefs  of  the  church  enjoyed  such  high  authority. 
The  political  power  of  certain  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  exceeded 
even  their  spiritual  authority,  as  in  the  case  of  Stephen  de 
Garland." 

The  social  and  economic  condition  was  as  bad  as  the  political. 
In  order  that  he  might  save  expense,  many  a  baron  neglected  to 
repair  the  roads  which  sank  into  quagmires  ;  river  channels  would 
become  obstructed  by  sand-bars  ;  bridges  be  swept  away  and  not 
rebuilt.  The  barriers  which  feudal  usurpations  opposed  to  com- 
merce were  interminable.  The  number  and  kind  of  exactions 
were  very  many.  Each  petty  baron  demanded  toll  for  the  use  of 
road,  bridge,  or  ferry,  while  strangers^-werej:eg-axded_as.l£gitimate 
objects  of  extortion.''  Often  the  guaj;d_of^ protection  was  a  band 
of  brigands.  The  seigneur  found  it  a  lucrative  practice  to  plun- 
der merchants  and  wayfarers.  Gregory  VII.  had  accused  Philip 
I.  of  despoiling  Italian  merchants  who  resorted  to  the  fairs  in 
France.^ 

This  was  the  sort  of  men  control  of  whom  was  laid  upon  the 
shoulders  of  the  young  king.  No  wonder  he  was  in  continual 
war."*     The  territory  of  the  enemy  began  a  few  miles  from  Paris; 

15).  The  grand  fiefs  were  duchies  and  counties;  after  them  came  chatellanies 
{Ibid.,  I.,  173).  A  viscounty  and  a  chatellany  were  one  and  the  same  thing 
{Ibid.,  II.,  676-7).  Many  hereditary  viscounties  in  the  twelfth  century  consisted 
of  a  chdteau  or  fortified  ville  with  a  considerable  domain,  together  with  the  serfs 
and  appurtenances  upon  it.  On  this  process  of  feudalization  see  Brussel,  I.,  44,  ff. 
'  See  this  dissertation,  pp.  48  ff.  The  bishops  of  Laon,  Chalons  and  Beau- 
vais  were  also  great  lay  lords.     Pfister,  Le  Rigne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  184. 

*  "  Ces  impots,  qui  nous  paraissent  si  ^tranges  par  leur  multiplicity  et  par 
leur  noms  que  nous  ne  comprenons  plus,  etaient  au  fond  aussi  legitimes  et 
aussi  conformes  a  toute  I'organisation  sociale  que  nos  impots  actuels.  La 
feodalit^  etait  une  gendarmerie." — Pigeonneau,  I.,  99. 

sEpistolae,  September  1074,  to  the  French  clergy;  and  to  William  of  Poi- 
tiers, November  1076. — H.  F.,  XIV.,  583,  587.  See  the  canons  of  the  councils 
of  Clermont  (1130),  Rheims  (1131),  etc.  Praecipimus  ut  .  .  .  .  peregrini  et 
mercatores  et  rustici  euntes  et  redeuntes  ....  omni  tempore  securi  sunt. — 
Canon  of  Clermont,  8. 

*  In  marte  continuo  —  Suger,  35. 


24  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

the  king  could  not  go  from  his  capital  to  Orleans  or  Compiegne 
without  a  band  of  men-at-arms.'  The  moral  advantage  of  royalty^ 
though  not  so  slight  as  sometimes  supposed/  had  little  influence 
over  a  horde  of  lusty  barons  who  fattened  on  war  and  had 
nothing  to  gain  from  peace  ;3  whose  delight  was  to  exercise  "the 
sovereign  rights  of  slaughter  and  havoc ;"  to  whom  glory  was 
physical  prowess  ;  the  baseness  of  whose  life  was  relieved  only  by 
the  faint  demands  of  chivalry/ 

Louis,  however,  was  not  without  some  advantages  in  the 
struggle.  The  age  in  which  he  lived  was  not  unfavorable  for  a 
man  who  knew  how  to  make  the  most  of  what  it  afforded.  The 
eleventh  century  had  closed  with  the  first  crusade  and  the  con- 
quest of  the  Holy  Land.  The  twelfth  century  began  with  Abe- 
lard  and  the  communal  movement  —  the  two  liberties  essential 
to  constitutional  life  —  liberty  of  the  spirit  and  civil  liberty .^ 
With  that  pious  crusading  enthusiasm  which  led  men  to  sell 
their  own  lands  in  order  to  see  others,  Louis  had  little  sympathy, 
but  he  was  quick  enough  to  see  the  good  results  likely  to  accrue 
to  the  throne  from  the  absence  of  turbulent  vassals  in  the  East.* 
^Two  classes,  the  bourgeoisie  and  the  lower  clergy,  whose  spirit  of 
subordination  resulting  from  the  hierarchical  organization,  had 
made  them,  on  the  whole,  favorable  to  authority,  were  equally 
devoted  to  the  king.^     In  fact  the  church  generally  was  faithful 

'Cumque  a  fluvio  Sequano  Corbeilo,  medio  vie  Monte  Leherii,  a  dextra 
Castella  Forti  pagus  Parisiacus  circumcingentur,  inter  Parisienseset  Aurelianses 
tantum  confusionis  chaos  firmatum  erat,  ut  neque  hi  ad  illos  neque  illi  ad  istos 
absque  perfidorum  arbitrio  nisi  in  manu  forti  valerent  transmeare. — Suger,  19. 

'  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  54. 

3  Pace  nihil  luctrantes. — Suger,  80. 

4  Freeman,  William  Ru/us,  II.,  Appendix  I.  The  conduct  of  Henry  I.  of 
England  towards  Louis  VI.  in  the  battle  of  Bremule  illustrates  the  prevalence 
af  chivalric  ideas. — Suger,  91-2. 

SGebhart,  Les  Origines  de  en  Renaissance  en  Italie,  Paris,  1878,  p.  28. 

*The  notorious  Hugh  de  Puiset  went  to  the  Holy  Land  (1128)  and  thus 
rid  France  of  one  of  the  most  despicable  and  dangerous  of  cut-throats.  He 
founded  the  dynasty  of  the  Counts  of^  Jaffa. — Suger,  79,  n.  5.  Gui  Trous- 
sel  and  the  Count  of  Rochefort  were  in  the  First  Crusade. — Ibid..,  18,  19  and 
n.  4. 

7  Combes,  132. 


LIBERATION  OF  THE  REALM.  25 

to  the  interests  of  monarchy.  The  Truce  of  God  promulgated  at 
the  council  of  Clermont  (1095)  had  been  an  effort  to  regulate  the 
disordered  condition  of  affairs.'  The  church  which  had  retained 
the  most  unity  in  the  prevailing  dismemberment  of  political 
society  had  sought  to  remedy  the  evils  of  robbery,  plunder,  ship- 
wrecking'' and  private  war,^  not  as  formerly,  by  hurling  anathe- 
mas, but  by  virtually  instituting  home  crusades  on  the  part  of 
the  clergy.  The  property  of  the  church  repleted  the  insufficient 
revenues  of  the  king;  the  church  supplied  the  emasculated  mon- 
archy with  men.'' 

The  imminence  of  the  danger  from  the  violence  of  the  barons 
had  produced  a  salutary  bestirring  in  royal  circles  towards  the 
end  of  Philip's  reign.  We  are  not  to  think  that  Philip  was  as 
incapable  as  is  commonly  supposed.^  He  was  inert ;  still  he  had, 
at  least,  the  merit  of  feeling  the  need  of  restoring  the  monarchy 
to  power  and  of  appreciating  the  valuable  abilities  of  his  son,  to 
whom  the  credit  of  this  movement  was  largely  due.  The  will  to 
accomplish  his  purpose,  however,  the  father  lacked. 

The  field  of  Louis'  action  was  in  the  main  confined  to  the 
spaces  between  the  five  cities  of  Paris,  Orleans,  Etampes,  Melun 
and  Compiegne;*  all  the  intermediate  territory  was  occupied  by 

'See  Ivo  of  Chartres,  epist.  90  (H.  F.,  XV.,  no)  for  an  elucidation  of  the 
character  and  scope  of  the  Truce  of  God.  The  oath  is  given  in  Rod.  Glab., 
IV.,  c.  5,  V.  c.  I.  The  restrictions  largely  failed  of  their  purpose  owing  to 
being  too  stringent  for  the  times  (DuCange,  Treva). 

'This  was  prohibited  by  Philip  Augustus. — Walker,  103. 

3  For  the  efforts  of  the  Carlovingians  to  regulate  private  war,  see  Beth- 
mann-Hollweg,  Civilprozess,  I.,  464-5.  For  its  prevalence  in  the  eleventh 
and  twelfth  centuries,  see  Mon.  Germ.  Hist.  Scriptores,  XV.,  839,  858,  879, 
1 1 46,  and  DuCange.  Dissert,  XXIX. — M.  Rambaud  {Civilisation  fran^aise, 
5th  edit,  1893,  Vol.  I.,  p.  224),  says  that  Louis  IX.,  in  estab!ishin-g  the 
Quarantaine-le-roi,  simply  revived  an  ordinance  of  Louis  VI. 

*  Ludovicus.  .  .  .  auxilium  per  Galliam  deposcere  coactus  est  episcoporum. 
Tune  ergo  communitas  in  Francia  popularis  statuta  est  a  praesulibus,  ut 
presbyteri  comitarentur  regi  ad  obsidionem  vel  pugnam  cum  vexillis  et 
parochianis  omnibus. — Ord.  Vit,  IV.,  285,  Suger,  65,  says  —  cum  communitates 
patriae  parochiorum  adessent. 

SLuchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  241. 

^Sismondi,  V.,  86. 


26  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

barons  who,  fortified  in  their  chateaux,  made  "  a  thievish  living 
on  the  common  road."  The  danger  from  the  barons  was  so 
great  that  even  upon  the  death  of  Philip  I.  Louis  VI.  had  him- 
self crowned  at  Orleans  by  the  archbishop  of  Sens  instead  of  at 
Rheims,  the  usual  place  of  coronation.'  The  conflict  was  fierce 
and  unremitting,  and  Louis  displayed  prodigious  courage.  He 
was  always  in  the  forefront  urging  his  men  by  word  and  deed. 
In  the  siege  of  the  Chateau  de  Mouchi  his  ardor  carried  him  into 
the  keep,  although  the  castle  was  a  mass  of  flames.  He  escaped, 
but  lost  the  use  of  his  voice  for  months  to  come.*  In  the 
.autumn  of  1107,  in  the  campaign  against  Humbaud  of  Sainte- 
Severe-sur-Indre,  when  the  king's  men  had  to  cross  that  river 
in  the  face  of  the  foe,  Louis  set  an  example  by  leaping  into  the 
water  and  fording  the  stream,  although  it  was  up  to  the  barred 
front  of  his  helmet.  ^ 

It  would  be  profitless  to  give  a  detailed  account  of  these  cam- 
paigns/ but  certain  salient  features  are  to  be  observed  : 

First,  every  fortress  taken  was  leveled,  or  else  entrusted  to 
parties  of  assured  fidelity .^ 

Second,  some  castles  were  too  strong  to  be  taken  by  arms, 
but   the   possession  of  them  was  of   vital  importance   to  Louis' 

•  Si  consecratio  regis  differetur,  writes  Ives  de  Chartres,  regni  status  et 
ecclesiae  pax  graviter  periclitaretur.  (H.  F.,  XV.,  144.  Cf.  Suger,  39-41.) 
Moreover,  the  archbishop  of  Rheims  had  just  been  elected  and  had  not  yet 
taken  his  seat.  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  70,  and  note  3.  Cf.  Luchaire,  Inst. 
Mon.,  I.,  82-3. 

'Tanta  viri  erat  animositas,  ut  nee  incendium  declinare  curaret  cum  et  ei 
et  exercitui  periculosum  esset  et  multo  tempore  maximam  ei  raucitatem  gene- 
raret. — Suger,  10. 

3  See  the  spirited  account  in  Suger,  c.  xi.  On  this  expedition  into  Bour- 
bonnais  see  M.  Brial's  analytical  memoir  in  the  Acad,  des  Inscript.,  VI.  (1824), 
pp. 129-137. 

4  Sixteen  are  recorded  by  Suger  alone. 

5  Louis  VI.  was  the  first  to  forbid  the  erection  of  fortresses  in  the  Ile-de. 
France  without  the  consent  of  the  king.— Brussel,  I.,  381.  He  constructed  walls 
in  the  vicinity  of  Paris,  erected  fortresses  and  placed  towers  upon  the  bridges  to 
facilitate  the  defense  of  the  city. — Dulaure,  Hist,  de  Paris.  Paris,  1829  (fourth 
edition).  Vol.  II.,  p.  46.  See  the  Notitia  de  Constructione  castri  Karoli-Vanae, 
H.  F.,  XIV.,  221,  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  324. 


LIBERATION  OF  THE  REALM.  27 

scheme  of  consolidation.  There  were  two  of  these,  whose  loca- 
tion was  such  as  to  make  their  occupation  by  the  king  imperative. 
They  were  the  Chateau  of  Montlhery,  and  that  of  La  Roche 
Guyon.'  They  were  impregnable,  and  a  constant  menace.  The 
first  was  situated,  in  the  striking  words  of  Suger,  in  the  very 
vitals  of  the  kingdom."  So  essentiaP  was  the  adherence  of  its 
lord  that  King  Philip  (we  may  believe  at  the  instance  of  Louis,) 
offered  his  natural  son  Philip  in  marriage  to  Guy's*  daughter 
Elizabeth,  who  brought  with  her  Montlhery  as  dowry.  Louis, 
on  his  part,  ceded  to  his  half-brother  the  castle  of  Mantes  as  a 
mark  of  confidence.  But  Philip  repaid  the  confidence  by 
intriguing  with  Amauri  IV.  de  Montfort,  Foulque  V.  the  Young 
of  Anjou,^  and  the  mother  of  Philip,  Bertrade,  the  king's 
mistress  and  late  Countess  of  Anjou.*  In  order  to  secure  La 
Roche  Guyon  Louis  himself  espoused  Lucienne,  the  daughter  of 
Guy  of  the  Rock.^ 

~  -  Third,  Louis  gave  active  support  to  the  great  prelates  of  the 
realm.  In  1102  or  1103  he  succored  the  church  of  Rheims, 
harried  by  Ebles  II.,  Count  de  Roucy,*  and  the  year  afterwards 
petition  came  for  help  from  the  sanctuary  of  Orleans.'  Nothing 
could  more   plainly   evince  the  boldness  of   the  barons.      The 

'La  Roche  Guyon  is  described  in  Freeman's  William  Rufus,  II.,  180-I. 

'In  ipsis  regni  visceribus. — Suger,  57. 

3Valde  enim  appetebant  castrum.     Ibid.,  18. 

''Qua  occasione  castri  custodie  sue  recepto,  tamquam  si  oculo  suo  festucam 
eruissent  aut  circumsepti  repagula  dirupissent,  exhilarescunt. — Ibid.  Gu' 
Troussel  was  a  son  of  Milon  I.  of  Montlhery. — Suger,  18,  n.  i. 

5  Suger,  57. 

*For  the  machinations  of  Bertrade,  see  Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  195  ff.,  and  Free- 
man's William  Rufus,  II.,  1 73-4. 

7  This  marriage  was  dissolved  at  the  Council  of  Troyes  in  1107.  Luchaire, 
Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  182,  attributes  the  rupture  with  the  family  of  Rochefort  to  the 
plottings  of  the  Garlands.  (Cf.  Suger,  19,  n.  5).  The  Count  of  Rochefort  was 
seneschal  in  1091,  and  was  replaced  by  Payen  de  Garland  at  the  time  of  the 
First  Crusade.  On  Guy's  return  from  the  Holy  Land  (about  1104)  he  was  rein- 
stalled in  the  office.  But  the  ascendancy  of  the  Garlands  acquired  during  his 
absence,  created  jealousy  and  finally  open  rupture  between  him  and  the  king. 
{Ibid.,  18,  n.  4.) 

8  Suger,  14. 
"Ibid.,  IS. 


28  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

archbishop  of  Rheims  was  grand  chancellor  of  the  realm,'  while 
the  church  of  Orleans  had  been  for  generations  under  the  special 
protection  of  the  crown,  and,  next  to  Rheims,  was  the  most  noted 
cathedral  west  of  the  Rhine. 

^.Fourth,  as  Louis'  power  grew,  the  sphere  of  application 
enlarged.  The  barons  were  to  learn,  as  Suger  aptly  said,  that 
"kings  have  long  arms.""  In  1115,  Alard  Guillebaud,  of  Berry, 
solicited  the  king's  help  in  recovering  the  seigneury  usurped  by 
his  uncle,  Aimond  Vairevache,  of  Bourbon.^  Louis  lost  no  time. 
The  way  to  the  south  was  open.  Not  since  the  days  of  Robert  the 
Pious  had  a  French  monarch  been  so  far  from  his  capital."  But 
a  grander  opportunity  for  the  extension  of  royal  power  to  the 
south  was  at  hand.  The  bishop  of  Clermont  had  complained  of 
the  Count  of  Auvergne  in  1121  (P).^  Five  years  later  another 
expedition  was  necessary.*  But  the  count  was  a  vassal  of  the 
great  duke  of  Aquitaine,^  the  most  powerful  lord  in  the  south. 
Interference  by  the  king  with  a  rear  vassal  was  a  thing  hitherto 
unheard  of  in  feudal  law.  But  the  king  was  strong.  He  had 
with  him  Charles  the  Good  of  Flanders,  Foulque  of  Anjou,  and 
the  Count  of  Brittany,  besides  many  barons  of  the  realm.*  Thus 
surrounded   by   what   was   in   fact   his  curia  regis,  Louis  entered 

'Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  188  ;  Mabillon,  113. 

"Suger,  83,  quoting  Ovid,  Heroides,  XVII.,  166.  Scitur  enim  longas 
regibus  esse  manus. 

^Ibid.,  c.  xxiv.  This  was  between  1 108-15.  See  Luchaire,  Antiales, 
Nos.  91-2,     Acad,  des  Inscrip.,  etc.,  VII.,  129(1806).     Cf.  Guizot,  IV.,  120-2. 

4  Pfister,  Le  Rigne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  286,  294. 

In  1 134  Louis  VI.  granted  to  Humbert,  bishop  of  Puy-en-Velay,  the  exer- 
cise of  regalian  rights  in  the  absence  of  his  lord,  the  Count  of  Tripoli,  in  Syria. 
Luchaire,  Annates,  532.  According  to  Sismondi  (V.  255)  this  is  the  first  appear- 
ance of  royal  authority  so  far  south  in  one  hundred  and  twenty-four  years. 

5  Suger,  108  and  n.  i. 

'On  the  dates  of  these  expeditions,  see  Suger,  108,  nn.  i,  3,  4,  and  Luchaire 
Annates  No.  369. 

7  Suger,  109. 

*Erant  in  ejus  expedicione,  conaes  prepotens  Flanderensis  Karolus,  comes 
Andegavensis  Fulco,  comes  Brittanie,  tributarius  regis  anglici  Henrici  de  Nor- 
mannia  exercitus,  barones  et  regni  optimates. — Ibid.,  108. 


LIBERATION  OF  THE  REALM.  29 

Auvergne,  gave  judgment  and  made  execution.'  The  Count  of 
Auvergne  called  upon  his  suzerain.  Duke  William  came  with 
his  army,  but  when  he  saw  the  host  of  the  king  he  was  filled  with 
fear  and  admiration.  He  did  homage  to  Louis  VI.,  and  acknowl- 
edged the  royal  right  to  take  cognizance  of  the  indirect  vassals 
of  the  crown.*  Arriere-ban  had  been  delivered  a  telling  blow. 
The  precedent  was  not  forgotten,  although  it  took  years  of  patient 
persistence  for  the  crown  entirely  to  establish  the  new  right.^ 
Finally,  it  is  to  be  noticed  that  the  history  of  these  wars  has 
an  intimate  connection  with  the  curia  regis,  and  therefore  has  a 
direct  relation  to  the  general  history  of  France  and  the  progress 
of  royal  power.  The  king  had  a  triple  mission ;  he  was  legis- 
lator, judge  and  sheriff,  all  in  one.'*  The  administration  of  jus- 
tice was  in  a  sorry  state  when  Louis,  as  prince,  assumed  active 
direction.5  These  campaigns  were  in  reality  executions  of  judg- 
ments,* often  by  default.     They  were   preceded  by  a  court  pro- 

'  Rex  cum  optimatibus  regni  consulens. — Ibid.,  no.  At  the  end  of  the 
reign  of  Philip  the  charters  distinguished  between  ordinary  counsellors  (curi- 
ales)  and  the  greater  feudal  advisers  {fideles  or  optimates).  It  is  stretching  the 
text,  however,  to  see  in  this  allusion  of  Suger  the  peers  of  later  Fiance. — Suger, 
no,  n.  I.  What  we  have  is  the  curia  regis,  still  as  an  ambulatory  body.  See 
this  dissertation  p.  4I-2. 

"Suger,  109-110.  The  speech  of  Duke  William  is  very  significant :  "Dux 
tuus  Aquitanie,  domine  rex,  multa  te  salute,  omni  te  potui  honore.  Non  dedig- 
netur  regie  majestatis  celsitudo  ducis  Aquitanie  servitium  suscipere,  jus  suum  ei 
conservare,  quia  sicut  justicia  exigit  servitium,  sic  et  justum  exigit  dominium. 
Arvernensis  comes,  quia  Alvernian  a  me,  quam  ego  a  vobis  habeo,  si  quid  com- 
misit  curie  vestre  vestro  habeo  imperio  representare.  Hoc  nunquam  prohibui- 
mus,  hoc  etiam  modo  offerimus  et  ut  suscipiatis  suppliciter  efflagitamus.  Et  ne 
super  his  celsitudo  vestri  dubitare  dignetur,  multos  sufficientes  obsides  dare- 
paratos  habemus.     Si  sic  indicaverint  regni  optimates,  fiat,  sin  aliter,  sicut." 

3  This  fellowship  is  the  beginning  of  the  friendly  relations  of  France  and 
Aquitaine,  which  culminated  in  the  union  of  Louis  the  Young  and  Eleanor. 
Louis  VIL  sustained  the  right  of  intervention  in  Auvergne.  Hist,  du  Roi 
Louis  VIL,  c.  xxii. ;  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  IL,  293. 

4Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  L,  vii.     Pardessus,  25-6. 

5  Ludovicus  itaque  ....  illuster  et  animosus  regni  paterni  defensor  eccle- 
siarum  utilitatibus  providebat;  oratorum  (aratorum?),  laboratorum  et  pauperum 
quod  diu  insolitum  fuerat,  quieti  studebat. — Suger,  9. 

^Brussel,  L,  326. 


30  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

cess,  although  such  process  was  little  more  than  a  matter  of  form 
in  the  case  of  such  bandits  as  Thomas  de  Marie'  and  Hugh  of 
Puiset.^  It  was  a  maxim  of  feudal  law  that  no  arrest  could  take 
place  in  the  court  itself.^  However  great  the  annoyances  were  in 
his  long  struggle  with  the  feudality,  Louis  had  always  an  instinc- 
tive reverence  for  law."  He  respected  the  rules  of  feudal  law — 
what  Suger  styles  the  "  custom  of  the  French  "^  or  the  "Salic  law.'" 
The  principle  and  interests  of  the  monarchy  demanded  a  legal 
basis  to  operate  upon.  Louis  made  his  judgments  hard  because 
he  believed  that  if  the  king  were  lightly  thought  of  in  a  case  of 
little  moment  there  would  be  no  hope  of  justice  in  those  involv- 
ing large  interests.^  To  that  end  he  was  always  on  the  alert, 
summoning  or  executing  in  person  or  by  agent,  hearing  causes  of 
immediate  instance  as  well  as  of  appeal^  and  reversing  lower 
decrees,  if  necessary.' 

This  consideration  leads  to  an  inquiry  into  the  judicial  sys- 
tem of  the  Capetian  monarchy. 

'  For  Thomas  de  Marie  and  his  brigandages  consult  Guibert  de  Nogent, 
III.,  c.  xi. 

*For  those  of  Hugh  de  Puiset,  see  Suger,  cc.  xviii.,  xxi. 
3Non  tentus,  neque  enim  Francorum  mos  est. — Suger,  9. 

4  See  this  dissertation,  introd.  p.  9. 

5  Francorum  mos  est,  etc. — Suger,  9. 

^ Ibid.,  37.  Suger  uses  some  queer  expressions  to  define  feudal  relations. 
Thus  (p.  -35)  Theobald  is  "  non  eminus  sed  comminus."  The  author  of  the 
Chroniques  de  Saint  Denis,  III.,  245,  interprets  this  thus  :  "Eut  le  sire  du  r&gne 
fait  mander  son  arriere-ban  et  les  gens  voisines  semonses,  car  il  n'eut  pas  loisir 
de  mander  loing  souldoiers." — Suger,  35,  n.  3.  Again  (p.  107)  Suger  speaks 
of  Foulque  of  Anjbu,  Conan  of  Brittany  and  the  Counts  of  Nevers  and  Berry 
as  "regni  debitores,"  meaning  grand  vassals.  He  is  in  error  regarding  the 
last  two. 

7  Louis  VI.  writes  to  Calixtus  II.,  Rex  ergo  Franciae,  qui  proprius  est 
Romanae  ecclesise  filius,  si  in  facili  causa,  si  in  levi  petitione  contemnitur,  nulla 
spes  in  majori  relinquitur. — H.  F.  XV.,  340. 

^On  appeal  see  this  dissertation,  pp.  39-41. 

'He  sends  word  to  Thierry  of  Flanders  (1132)  to  look  after  the  bishop  of 
Arras,  Alvisus,  whom  Eustace  de  la  Longue  had  wronged  by  a  false  decree, — 
contra  justitiam  et  rationem  in  curia  sua.  H.  F.,  XV.,  342-3.  See  Luchaire, 
Jnst.  Mon.,  I.,  300-1.  Langlois,  TexUs  relatifs  a  rHistoire  du  ParlemenU 
No.  VII. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE  COURT  OF  THE  KING  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS 
UNDER   LOUIS  VI.' 

ORGANIZATION EXTENSION  OF  ITS  COMPETENCE CHANGES  IN 

FEUDAL    LAW. 

The  highest  court  of  justice  was  a  bench  composed  of  the 
princes  of  the  blood,  the  grand  vassals  of  the  crown,  seigneurs 
holding  immediately  of  the  king,  archbishops,  bishops  and  the 
officers  of  the  king's  palace.''  It  was  commonly  called  the  curia 
regis?  The  participation  of  the  vassals  was  more  or  less  com- 
plete according  to  circumstances.'*  The  ordinance  therein  made 
with  the  consent  of  the  baronage,  was  less  an  act  of  the  express 
will  of  the  suzerain  than  a  political  agreement.  It  was  sanctioned 
by  a  greater  or  less  number  of  vassals,  as  the  case  was,  and 
was  executory  throughout  the  extent  of  the  realm.^  As  far  as 
they  contributed  to  the  making  of  the  law,  the  signing  barons 
engaged  for  and  against  all,  to  put  it  into  execution.     They  were 

'  See  Luchaire,  La  Cour  du  Koi  et  ses  fonctions  judiciaires  sous  le  regtie  de 
Louis  VL. 

'  Cf.  H.  F.,  X.,  627,  XL  407. 

3  Comes  quidam  malefactor,  nomine  Rodolphus,  qui  res  ecclesise  per 
injustam  occasionem  invaserat  .  .  .  appelatus  fuit  in  Curia  Regis. —  Letter  of 
Fulbert  of  Chartres  to  John  XIX.,  H.  F.,  X.,  473. 

The  common  expressions  employed  to  denote  the  royal  assembly  are  curia 
regis,  conventus,  conciliufti  and  colloquium.  Sometimes,  when  of  an  ecclesi- 
astical phase,  the  terms  synodus  or  placitum  are  employed.  In  general,  the  con- 
vention was  composed  of  the  most  prominent  feudal  and  church  representatives: 
\he  firiticipes,  \ht  primates  and  the  proceres  regis,  i.  e.,  the  bishops  and  nobles 
(episcopi  et  optimates,  episcopi  et  barones). — Luchaire,  Manuel,  494. 

*  Pardessus,  29. 

5  Practically,  the  application  of  the  law  was  much  less  than  this.     Even  in 
the  time  of  Philip  Augustus  these  agreements  "were  no  further  binding  than  the 
personal  territories  of  the  contracting  parties  extended." — Walker,  68. 
31 


32  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

supposed  to  advise  those  vassals  who  were  not  present,  and  con- 
strain those  who  did  not  wish  to  conform  to  the  decree/  In  fact, 
it  was  sometimes  specified  that  the  signers  had  taken  oath  to 
enforce  observation  of  the  law  upon  all  who  essayed  to  infringe 
it.'  The  competence  of  the  court  was  thus  very  largely  measured 
by  the  competence  of  the  lords  and  councilors  around  the  person 
of  the  king.3  The  ecclesiastical  seigneurs,  being  more  dependent 
upon  royalty,  came  more  often  and  in  greater  numbers  than  the 
laity,  and  exercised  a  considerable  influence  over  affairs  pertain- 
ing to  the  baronage.  The  reciprocal  relation  existing  between 
the  throne  and  the  clergy,  and  the  double  power,  feudal  and 
ecclesiastical,  of  the  latter,  explains  the  importance  of  the  clergy 
to  the  royal  government.''  The  church  possessed  the  degree  of 
instruction  necessary  to  settle  the  difficulties  over  which  the  court 
of  the  king  had  jurisdiction.^  The  ecclesiastics  of  Sens  and 
Rheims,  in  whose  jurisdiction  lay  the  greater  part  of  the  lands 
immediately  under  royal  authority,  appear  most  frequently  in  the 
royal  assembly.*  Among  lay  lords  are  first  those  not  far  removed 
from  Paris,  the  small  barons  of  Parisis,  Vexin,  Etampes, 
L'Orleanais,  Beauvaisais,  etc.;  among  high  feudatories  come  the 
counts  of  Flanders,  Ponthieu,  Vermandois,  Champagne,  Nevers 
and  Blois.^  As  for  the  more  distant  feudal  chiefs,  their  presence 
depended  on  the  most  diverse  circumstances :  geographical 
situation,  or  the  more  or  less  amicable  relations  with  the  crown 
being  the  principal  determinants.  Before  the  twelfth  century, 
the  dukes  of  Normandy,  Aquitaine  and  Burgundy,  and  the 
counts   of    Brittany,   Anjou    and    Auvergne  were   present   more 

'  Pardessus,  32. 

'  huchaiie,  Manuel,  2^1-2. 

3  Hid.,  557. 

*  Luchaire,  /ns(.  Mon.,  I.,  294. 
5  Luchaire,  Manuel,  494. 

*  Luchaire,  Manuel,  495. 

7  It  will  be  observed  that  the  distinction  which  prevailed  by  the  time  of 
Philip  Augustus,  between  the  regium  concilium  and  the  curia  regis  cannot  be 
ascertained  at  this  time.  See  Luchaire,  Za  Cour  du  Roi  et  ses  fonctions  judici- 
aires  sous  le  rigne  de  Louis  VL,  pp.  24-5.  Cf.  Froidevaux,  De  regiis  conciliis 
Philippo  LI.,  Augusta  regnante,  habitis.     Paris,  1891. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  33 

frequently   than   in  the  reign   of   Louis  VI.,  when  royalty  was 
isolating  itself  in  order  to  fortify  and  concentrate  its  powers.' 

The  court  in  the  time  of  Louis  VL  had  cognizance  of  civil  and 
criminal  matters,""  cases  involving  the  communes,'  appeals  for 
redress  or  protection,  and  even  such  trivial  things  as  a  squabble 
between  monks  of   rival  monasteries.'*     The  way  in  which  Louis 

'  There  is  a  distinction  made  in  the  feudal  law  of  the  tenth  and  eleventh 
centuries  between  the  right  of  justice  of  the  king  as  suzerain,  and  the  right  of 
justice  of  the  king  as  prince  of  those  who  owe  him  fealty.  In  the  latter  case,  the 
king  sits  less  as  a  feudal  lord  than  as  a  prince  clothed  with  sovereignty, 
although  the  distinction  lost  its  practical  importance  owing  to  the  conduct  of 
the  kings.  The  curia  regis  originally  comprised  all  fideles  whom  the  king 
chose  to  summon.  According  to  custom,  unless  it  were  a  cause  involving  an 
ecclesiastical  seigneur  or  a  superior  baron,  one  who  was,  therefore,  not  ame- 
nable to  the  judgment  of  simple  vassals,  the  case  was  tried  before  the  court  of 
justice  made  up  of  ordinary  vassals,  i.  e.,  contests  between  vassals  properly  so- 
called  were  decided  by  a  feudal  court  where  they  alone  sat,  which  was  merely 
an  incorporation  in  the  feudal  regime  of  a  principle  which  far  antedated  the 
existence  of  a  feudal  polity.  But  the  fact  that  the  king  was  also  Duke  of 
Francia  made  it  possible  for  him  to  bring  to  bear  a  degree  of  authority  upon  the 
fideles  which,  while  technically  legal,  tended  to  eliminate  any  action  of  theirs 
calculated  to  dominate  in  the  curia  regis.  The  vassals  of  the  duke  were  neces- 
sarily also  direct  vassals  of  the  king.  The  king  caused  the  affairs  even  oi  fideles 
to  be  judged  through  the  court  of  his  own  vassals,  a  method  of  procedure  as 
effective  as  it  was  legitimate ;  for  it  was  to  royal  advantage  so  to  do,  inasmuch 
as  the  constituency  of  the  court  was  composed  of  the  men  who  lived  in  his 
immediate  neighborhood,  and  who  were  more  likely  to  be  under  his  control,  as 
the  grand  officers  of  the  crown,  the  seneschal,  butler,  chamberlain,  constable 
and  chancellor.  The  result  was  that  by  the  twelfth  century  the  curia  regis  had 
become,  in  principle,  royal  rather  than  feudal.  The  curia  regis  thus  became 
technically  a  court  of  peers  without  being  so  in  fact ;  a  court  whose  competence 
no  one  could  deny,  but  which  was  in  fact  a  mixed  court,  which  aided  the  king 
to  transform  his  feudal  suzerainty  into  sovereignty  and  rendered  his  sovereignty 
effective  under  the  guise  of  a  feudal  suzerainty.  See  on  this  head,  Flach,  I., 
livre  II.,  ch.  viii.,  especially  pp.  244-254;  Ileeren,  Pol.  Werke,  II.,  166  ff. 

''Galbert  de  Bruges,  c.  47. 

3  Langlois,  Textes  relatifs  a  Vllist.  du  Parlemenl,  No.  VIII.  Luchaire, 
Manuel,  557,  c.  On  the  capacity,  in  general,  of  the  court,  see  Luchaire,  Insl. 
Mon.,  I.,  289,  ff. 

^H.  F.,  XIV.,  156.  The  king  released  the  monasteries  from  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  intermediate  judges,  allowing  cases  to  come  directly  before  him. — 
Brussel,  I.,  507. 


34  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

insisted  upon  the  competence  of  the  royal  court  over  the  clergy 
was  dignified  and  steadfast.  Fortunately  his  two  ministers, 
Stephen  de  Garland,  and  after  him  Suger,  churchmen  though 
they  were,  were  in  perfect  accord  with  the  king  in  maintaining 
the  dependence  of  the  clergy  upon  the  royal  authority.'  The 
court  was  also,  on  occasion,  a  national  parliament,  as  when  the 
Emperor  Henry  V.  threatened  France.  It  then  enjoyed  a  truly 
political  character." 

The  fluid  composition  of  the  court  in  the  eleventh,  and  even 
in  the  early  twelfth  century,  is  discernible  in  its  lack  of  specific 
organization.  Its  procedure  was  feudal,^  with  frequent  recourse 
to  trial  by  battle.  Acts  of  general  interest  are  rare.  Legislation 
is  accompanied  by  the  use  of  grandiloquent  phrases,  as  edictum 
regulis  imperii,  signum  serenissimi  ac  gloriossismi  regis,  auctori- 
tatis  nostrae praeceptum,  and  the  like."  The  acts  are  disfigured 
with  interminable  preambles,  and  encumbered  with  numerous 
signatures.  Under  Louis  le  Gros,  however,  they  become  more 
formal  and  simple.  Instead  of  the  inscriptions  of  a  motley  array 
of  court  retainers,  nobles,  chaplains,  physicians,  tutors  and  even 
cooks  and  scullions,  who  all  took  a  hand  in  the  business  under 

'  See  the  complaint  of  Hildebert,  archbishop  of  Tours  (i  126),  writing  prob- 
ably to  the  papal  legate.  H.  F.,  XV.,  319.  Louis  VI.  would  not  let  decrees  of 
an  ecclesiastical  tribunal  be  valid  till  sanctioned  by  him.  "Dehinc  auditu 
utriusque  partis  causa,  cum  ego  adhuc  debitum  expectarem  judicium.  Rex  mihi 
per  se  ipsum  prohibuit  ne  quidquam  de  praedictarum  redditibus  dignitatum  aut 
praesumerem  aut  ordinarem."  Cf.  Letter  of  Honorius  LL.,  Ibid.,  XV.,  321. 
Acquisition  or  alienation  of  fiefs  by  the  church  he  made  conditional  on  royal 
consent. — "  Non  enim  licet  episcopo  feodum  aliquod  sine  nostro  et  capituli  sui 
assensu  de  rebus  ecclesiae  alicui  prebere  :  quod  profecto  judicium  et  approbamus 
et  ubique  in  regno  nostro  ergo  ecclesiae  tenemus"  (1132). — Langlois,  Textes 
relatifs  a  V Histoire  du  Parlement,  No.  VII.  Consult  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I., 
282-8 ;  294-300.  See  also  the  elaborate  case  of  the  partition  of  the  rights  of 
the  banlieue  with  the  Archbishop  of  Paris,  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  218 
Luchaire,  La  Cour  du  Roi  et  ses  fonctions  judiciaires  sou  -  V  rigne  de  Louis  VL., 
pp.  17-18.  Gudrard,  Cartul  de  Notre-Dame  de  Paris,  I.,  252.  The  act  itself  is 
in  Tardif,  No.  345. 

'  Suger,  103.     Luchaire,  Inst.  Man.,  I.,  267-8. 

3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  558. 

<Mabillon,  no. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  35 

the  early  kings,  we  find  now  such  promiscuous  attention  to  the 
work  of  the  curia  regis  increasingly  rare ;  and  sometimes  only 
the  signatures  of  the  seneschal,  butler,  chamberlain,  constable 
and  chancellor.'  A  refreshing  revival  of  ancient  forms  is  also 
noticeable,  borrowed  from  the  old  Prankish  chancery.'  More 
care  is  taken  in  chronology,^  and  the  seal  is  more  carefully 
affixed.'*  Refusals  to  obey  court  summons  also  cease  almost 
entirely.  The  refractory  barons  protest  and  procrastinate,  and 
with  one  accord  make  excuses,  but  seldom  refuse  obedience  to 
the  summons.^ 

The  revival  of  the  Carlovingian  chancery  suggests  another 
reform  made  by  Louis  le  Gros,  partaking  somewhat  of  Carlo- 
vingian forms.  Even  towards  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century 
may  be  discerned  that  contraction  in  the  constituency  of  the 
curia  regis  v^\\\c\\  gZN&  x\%^  \.o  the  institution  of  the  pa  latins,  an 
administrative  body  of  preponderant  authority  in  the  next  cen- 
tury.* This  change  is  a  sure  sign  of  centralization.  Gradually 
the  king,  about  whose  person  the  palatins  habitually  gathered, 
came  to  entrust  to  them,  as  the  exigency  arose,  duties  of  an 
administrative  nature,  judicial  inquiries,  or  diplomatic  errands.^ 

'In  the  session  of  the  court"  under  Philip  I.  (1066)  an  act  is  signed  by 
twenty-four  persons  (Langlois,  Textes  relatifs  a  VHistoire  du  Parlement,  No. 
IV.).  A  decree  by  Louis  VI.  (11 12)  is  signed  by  twelve  {Ibid.,  No.  VI.).  In 
1 136  only  the  chancellor  and  the  four  great  officers  attest  {Ibid.,  No,  VIII.).  Cf. 
Luchaire,  Insf.  Mon.,  I.  169,  note. 

^See  Suger,  80,  and  n.  5;  H,  F.,  XV.,  342;  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  489 
Langlois,  Textes  relatifs  a  VHistoire  du  Parlement,  No.  VII.  The  charter  to 
Notre-Dame  de  Paris  (Tardif,  No.  377),  in  11 19,  is  a  copy,  word  for  word,  of  a 
similar  act  by  Louis  le  Debonnaire.  (Tardif,  No.  104)  It  even  enumerates 
Carlovingian  imposts.  For  other  cases  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  213,  and 
n.  2;  244.  Revue  Hist.,  XXXVII.  (1888),  Luchaire,  Louis  le  Gros  et  son 
Palatins,  p.  267. 

sMabillon,  204. 

t  Ibid.,  426. 

5  Revue  Hist.,  XLII.  (1890),  p.  84.  Langlois,  Les  Origines  du  Parlement  de 
Paris. 

*  Luchaire,  Manuel,  534.  On  the  palatins,  see  Luchaire, /w^/.  i^£7«.,  L, 
199-204  ;  Brussel,  I.,  370-6. 

^  Les  noms  qui  se  trouvent  au  pied  de  la  plupart  des  arrets  rendus  par  la 
cour  capdtienne — noms  des  personages  qui  ont  conseilld  au  roi  sa  decision. 


36  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

Louis  conceived  the  idea  of  using  these  trustworthy  men  as  spe- 
cial representatives  of  the  royal  person  in  judicial  proceedings. 
The  abuse  of  power  by  the  local  prevots  was  very  great,'  and  he 
thought  to  remedy  the  evils  of  administration  by  making  these 
occasional  missions  a  prominent  feature  of  his  government. 
President  Renault '^  has  claimed  that  Louis  VI.  actually  revived 
the  missi  dominici.  But  these  officers  had  not  the  extensive  juris- 
diction of  the  Carlovingian  missi;  rather  they  were  royal  prevots 
endowed  with  special  powers ;  ^  but  they  were  never  in  his  time 
a  distinct  order  of  the  administration.     Louis  VL  did  not  revive 

aprfes  avoir  entendu  la  cause,  prouvent  que  quelques  palatins  se  sont  fait  de 
bonne  heure  une  spdcialite  des  affaires  judiciaires.  Langlois,  Revue  Hist., 
XLII.,  1890,  p.  79.  Les  Origines  du  Parlement  de  Paris.  Cf.  Glasson,  V., 
402. 

'  Brussel,  I.,  394. 

»  Renault,  I.,  196;  also  Gaillard,  I.,  186. 

3  Mais  a  la  fin  du  douzieme  si^cle,  quand  I'autorit^  royale,  d'abord  faible  et 
sans  action,  eut  pris  un  essor  remarquable,  sous  Louis  VI.  et  sous  sonfils,  par  les 
soins  de  Sugar,  quand  dominant  les  tyrannes  locales  et  parvenant  a  se  faire  la 
protectrice  des  faibles,  a  moddrer  les  querelles  des  seigneurs  puissants,  elle  fut 
devenue,  comme  I'a  dit  M.  Guizot,  "une  sorte  de  justice  de  paix  universelle," 
elle  sentit  que  pour  s'exercer  utilement  elle  devait  avoir  pour  repr^sentants  des 
agents  plus  considerables  que  les  prevots.'  Vuitry,  I.,  157.  Cf.  Brussel,  I., 
507-8.  Such  a  case  is  cited  by  Mabillon,  600,  Charter,  No.  180(1135).  Notilia 
judicati  pro  monasierio  majori  sancti  Crispini  Suessionensi  de  feodo  Biiiisiaci: 
Ego  Teulfus,  abbas  ....  notum  fieri  volo  ....  quod  quidam  vir  Suessione- 
sis,  Aloldus  nomine,  habebat  quosdam  reditus  apud  villam,  quae  dicitur  Bisti- 
sisacus,  scilicet  vinatica,  hospites,  terragia  quae  se  dicebat  in  feodo  tenere  ab 
ipsa  ecclesia.  Cumque  ab  antiqui  monachis  ecclesiaeque  familis  diligenter 
requississem  quid  super  hoc  sentirent ;  jurejurando  mihi  retulerunt,  ilium  non 
vera  proferre ;  quin  potius  per  subreptionem  non  ex  recto  et  jure,  ab  ecclesia 
extorsisse.  Hie  ergo  veridica  relatione  compertis,  Aloldum  in  praesentiam 
nc  i  quam  saepius  arcessiri  volui ;  quem  minis  blanditiisque  pulsabam,  ut 
ha  "->ia  quae  ab  ecclesia  injuste  et  per  violentiam  abstulerat,  Sanctis  resti- 
tut  xcommunicationi  subjaceret.     Quod  cum  nee  plene  refutans,  nee 

omnino  ahsentiens,  in  dies  agere  differret,  ita  me  suspensum  reddebat  .... 
Indixi  itaque  illi  diem  placiti  in  curia  nostra ;  protestans  me  facere  quid  unde 
judicaret  lex  causidica  vel  ecclesiastica.  Venit  ergo  ad  praefixum  diem,  fretus 
amicorum  etjurisperitorum  maxima  caterva.  Quod  ego  praenoscens,  missa  ad 
gloriosissimum  Francorum  regem  Ludovicum  epistola,  exordine  patefeci  omnia. 
Qui  ex  lateri  sua  Hugonem,  agnomento  kc\\z.x\x\.,  praepositum  regiutn  misit, 
imperans,  ut  causam  ecclesiae  defineret  justo  judicio. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  37 

the  ancient  Carlovingian  order ;  the  humbler  work  was  his  to 
break  the  way  for  the  greater  and  permanent  institution  of  the 
reign  of  Philip  Augustus,  that  of  the  grand  bailiffs.' 

An  attempt  by  Louis  VI.  to  modify  the  judicial  duel  was 
measurably  successful.  He  could  not  hope  to  abolish  it,  for  the 
feature  was  too  organic  a  portion  of  existing  law.'  Even  St. 
Louis  was  able  to  enforce  a  decree  against  trial  by  battle  in  the 
area  of  his  immediate  realm  only.^  However,  from  the  reign  of 
Louis  le  Gros  the  prevalence  of  duelling  begins  to  decline, 
and  written  evidence  has  increasing  weight.*  If  he  could 
not  level  down,  Louis  VI.  could  level  up  —  he  could  open 
the  lists  to  those  hitherto  debarred.  In  1108  he  granted  the 
serfs  of  Notre-Dame  de  Paris  the  privilege  of  battle  with  freemen 

^On  the  bailiffs  of  Philip  Augustus,  see  Brussel,  I.,  495-505;  Walker, 
129-137.  Langlois,  Revtie  Hist.,  XLII.  (1890),  p.  lOi,  Les  Origines  du  Parle- 
ment  de  Paris,  compares  them  to  the  justices  in  eyre  {justicarii  itinerantes)  of 
Angevin  England.  But  Stubbs  holds  that  "there  is  no  occasion  to  look  for  a 
precedent  for  the  institution  of  itinerant  justices  (in  England)  in  the  misst 
dominici  of  Charles  the  Great  or  the  measures  of  Louis  the  Fat." — Chron.  Bene- 
dict, Peterbiirgensis,  Rolls  Series,  II.,  Introd.  Ivii.  It  would  be  profitless  to 
inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  institution  of  Louis  VI.  even  admitting  it  were 
ever  a  customary  form,  and  not  an  extraordinary  usage  in  his  time.  Whether 
the  plan  were  suggested  by  the  ancient  Carlovingian  practice,  or  by  the  inno- 
vations of  Henry  I.  of  England  (see  Stubbs,  Select  Charters,  7th  ed.,  p.  141); 
whether  the  reforms  of  Henry  I.  were  prior  to  those  of  Louis  VI.  or  not; 
whether  those  of  either  king  were  sujggested  by  Carlovingian  practice  or  Nor- 
man influence  —  these  must  be  matters  largely  of  speculation.  Brunner  {Schwur- 
gericht,  pp.  112  ff.)  argues  for  the  priority  of  the  itinerant  justices  of  Nor- 
mandy to  those  of  England.  But  this  sheds  no  light  on  priority  between 
Louis  VI.  and  Henry  I.  Stubb's  remark  seems  to  me  to  be  eminently  wise : 
"  In  this  point,  as  well  as  in  others,  it  seems  far  more  natural  to  suppose  that 
similar  circumstances  suggested  similar  institutions." —  Const.  History  of  Eng- 
land, I.  418.  ^ 

^H.  F.,  X.,  121,  note  a.;  XL,  484,  note  b.  '•'' 

3DuCange,  Duellium.  On  the  legislation  of  Philip  Augustus  against  the 
duel,  see  Delisle,  Catalogue  des  Actes  de  Phillippe  Auguste,  Paris,  1856,  No.  861 
and  appendix,  p.  522;  Ordonnances,  XL,  250,  283.  Philip  IV.  abolished  it  in 
1302  throughout  the  realm  (Secretan,  469).  The  clergy  advocated  the  equaliza- 
tion of  witnesses  before  the  law.  See  the  letter  of  Ivo  of  Chartres. — H.  F., 
XV.,  52.  Cf.  Mabillon,  601. 
Luchaire,  Manuel,  538. 


y 


38  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

before  the  courts.'  In  1109  the  right  was  extended  to  serfs  of 
the  abbey  of  Sainte-Genevieve  de  Paris.*  The  next  year  those  of 
the  bishop  of  Paris  were  admitted  to  testify  in  forensibus  et  civili- 
bus  causis  vel placitis  adversus  liberos  homines,^  and  in  hit  those 
of  the  priory  of  Saint-Martin-des-Champs."  In  1128a  notable 
case  occurred.  Louis  had  admitted  the  serfs  of  the  chapter  of 
Chartres  to  the  privileges  of  witness  and  trial  by  battle ;  the  dis- 
affected freemen  pleaded  the  former's  servile  condition  as  a  dis- 
barment, whereupon  the  king  declared  any  person  who  refused 
to  accept  the  royal  decree  guilty  of  treason  and  an  enemy  of  the 
state.5     Such  acts  on  the  part  of  the  king  tended  to  discourage 

'  Ego  Ludovicus,  Dei  dementia  Francorum  rex,  communi  quidem  episco- 
porum  ac  procerum  nostrorum  consilio  et  assensu,  regie  auctorjtatis  decreto, 
instituo,  decerno,  ut  servi  sancte  Parisiensis  ecclesiae  illi  scilicet  qui  proprie  ad 
canonicos  pertinent,  adversus  onines  homines  tam  liberos  quam  servos,  in  omni- 
bus causis,  placitis  et  negotiis,  liberam  et  perfectam  habeant  testificandi  et  bel- 
landi  licentiam,  et  nemo  unquam,  servitutis  occasionem  eis  opponens,  in  eorum 
testimonio  ullam  dare  presumat  calumpniam.  Hac  autem  ratione  licentiam 
testificandi  ea  que  viderint  et  audierint  eis  concedimus,  quod,  si  aliquis  liber 
homo  in  eadem  causa  de  falso  testimonio  illos  contradicere  et  conprobare  volue- 
rit,  aut  suam  conprobationem  duello  perficiat,  aut,  eorum  sacramentum  sine 
ulla  alia  contradictione  recipiens,  illorum  testimonio  adquiescat.  Quodsi  ali- 
quis temeraria  presumptione  illorum  testimonium  in  aliquo  refutaverit  aut 
calumpniaverit,  non  solum  regie  auctoritatis  et  publice  institucionis  reus  existat, 
sed  querelam  negocii  sui  vel  placiti  inrecuperabiliter  amittat ;  ita  scilicet  ut 
presumptuosus  calumpniator  de  querela  sua,  si  querat  ulterius,  non  audiatur,  et 
si  aliquid  ab  eo  queratur,  alterius  querele  reus  et  convictus  omnino  habeatur. 
Aliud  etiam  statuimus  ut  predictur  calumpniator;  nisi  de  tanta  calunpnie  culpa 
Parisiensis  ecclesie  satisfecerit,  excommunicationis  mucrone  feriatur  et  testi- 
monium fatiendum  interea  non  admittatur. — Tardif,  No.  334. 

^  Ibid.,  No.  341. 

3  Ibid.,  No.  345.  The  quotation  is  from  a  letter  of  Ivo  of  Chartres  which  con- 
tinues :  Dilectus  filius  noster  Ludovicus  Francorum  rex  pro  utilitate  ecclesiastici 
ita  consulendum  arbitratus  est,  ut  episcoporum  ac  procerum  consilio  et  assensu 
institueret  Parisiensis  ecclesiae  famulos  in  omnibus  causis,  placitis  et  negotiis 
adversus  omnes  homines  tam  liberos  quam  servos  et  perfectam  testificandi  et 
bellandi  licentiam,  ita  ut  nemo  eorum  testimonio  pro  ecclesiasticae  servitutis 
occasione  calumniam  inferat. — H.  F.,  XV.,  52. 

</(5/^.,  No.  346.    cy:  No.  371. 

5  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  408.  There  is  a  capital  account  of  a  judicial 
duel  in  Galbert  de  Bruges,  chap.  Iviii. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  39 

the  judicial  duel,  for  it  humilated  a  freeman  to  have  to  fight  a 
villain,  while  it  correspondingly  elevated  the  servile  class  in  their 
own  esteem  and  the  eye  of  the  law.' 

The  practice  of  appeal,  as  instituted  by  Louis  VI.,  ^  was  an 
entire  interpolation  in  the  feudal  law  of  the  land.  The  great- 
ness of  this  act  has  not  failed  to  elicit  the  admiration  of  histori- 
ans. Montesquieu^  characterized  it  as  "a  veritable  revolution." 
Hitherto,  the  dukes  of  Normandy  and  Aquitaine,  the  counts  of 
Brittany,  Flanders,  Champagne,  and  Toulouse  had  enjoyed  the 
privilege  of  final  decision.''  This  condition  was  of  course,  a 
result  of  the  dissipation  of  the  ancient  Carlovingian  authority. 
In  the  days  of  Charles  the  Bald,  and  after  him,  when  royalty  was 
fast  becoming  a  dignity  merely,  and  not  a  power,  the  dukes  and 
counts  of  the  provinces  used  for  their  own  ends,  and  against  the 
king,  the  authority  delegated  to  them.  By  every  possible  means 
they    prevented    access    to    the    royal    court.      Thus    the    king's 

'Cf.  Lamprecht,  216-7.  The  customs  of  Lorris  provided  for  a  fine  in  case 
of  forfeit,  if  the  duel  were  once  agreed  upon :  —  Si  vadia  duelli  temere  dederint 
homines  de  communia  et  praepositi  assensu,  antequam  dentur  obsides,  concor- 
daverint,  et  si  de  legitimis  hominibus  duellium  factum  fuerit  obsides  devicti 
centum  et  duodecim  solidos  persolvent. —  Art.  14,  Ordonnances,  XL,  201. 

^  Luchaire, /«j/.  Mon.,  I.,  300-1.  Luchaire,  La  Cour  du  Roi  et  ses  fonc- 
tions  judiciaires  sous  le  rigne  de  Louis  VI.,  pp.  23-4.  Acad,  des  Inscript.,  XXX., 
590.  Aubert,  Le  Parlement  de  Paris  de  Phillippe-la-Bel  a  Charles  VII.  (1314- 
1422),  ch.  i.  C.  P.  Marie-Haas,  L' Administration  de  la  France,  I.,  186 
Eminent  savants,  among  them  Brussel  (I.,  163,  178,  227),  Henrion,  De  VAutorite 
judiciaire  en  France,  Introd.,  p.  55,  and  Mably  [Observations  surlHist.  de 
^r««c^,  livre  III.,  ch.  iii)  have  denied  this;  the  last  holding  that  such  usage 
was  not  in  effect  until  the  reign  of  Philip  Augustus ;  but  the  fact  is  well  authen- 
ticated. The  cases  of  the  bishop  of  Arras  (H.  F.,  XV.,  342-3;  Langlois, 
Textes  Relatifs  a  V Hisioire  du  Parlement,  No.  VII ;  cf.  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I., 
300)  and  of  the  people  of  Sainte-Severe,  are  clear  evidence  (Suger,  ch.  xi.). 
Huguenin  (p.  17)  holds  that  Suger  is  responsible  for  the  reform,  but  as  the 
work  is  an  unqualified  eulogy  of  th6  abbot  of  St.  Denis,  the  statement  may  not 
be  wholly  trusted.  The  truth  is,  Louis  VI.  and  Suger  were  so  agreed  in  policy 
that  it  is  often  difficult  to  distinguish  with  whom  the  real  honor  lies. 

3"  L'introduction  des  appels  dans  les  mceurs  judiciaires  fut  une  veritable 
revolution."  Quoted  by  Langlois,  Revue  Hist.,  XLII  (1890),  p.  100.  Les 
Origines  du  Parlement  de  Paris. 

^Brussel,  I.,  234-5;  Luchaire,  Manuel,  257. 


4°  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

judicial  power  became  almost  nullified  save  in  his  direct  domain. 
But  to  this  mediatization  there  was  one  exception.  In  the  hie- 
rarchical constitution  of  feudalism,  the  highest  suzerain  was  the 
king.  Beneath  him  the  lords  were  judges  in  their  own  domains, 
as  the  king  in  his,  but  only  on  condition  of  giving  ear  to  all 
demands  for  justice.'  This  obligation  was  the  correlative  of  his 
obedience  to  the  king.  In  case  of  failure  of  justice  [defectus 
justitice)  only,  did  the  king  have  original  jurisdiction  over  rear 
vassals.''  But  Louis,  by  instituting  the  practice  of  appeal,  inau- 
gurated something  radically  new.*  True  appeal  is  distinctly  anti- 
feudal  ;  it  implies  deference  to  a  higher  jurisdiction,  the 
supremacy  of  another  will.''  It  recognizes  the  majesty  of  the 
king;  the  superiority  of  the  king's  law — the  legitimate  right  of 
royalty  to  cover  with  its  shield  all  the   law   and   all   the  persons 

'  Pardessus,  27-8. 

^DuCange,  Defectus  justiticv.  Failure  of  justice  might  occur,  too,  if  the 
attendance  at  the  lord's  court  were  too  reduced ;  or  when  the  court  failed  to 
convene.  In  Brittany,  however,  in  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  —  for 
Louis  VI.  made  no  attempt  to  coerce  a  vassal  so  far  removed  —  there  was  no 
appeal,  even  in  case  of  denial  of  justice.     (Luchaire,  Manuel,  257.) 

3L'id€e  de  I'appel  dtait  en  principe  dtrangfere  a  la  justice  fdodale  ....  Ce 
fut  la  transition  entre  I'ancien  appel,  qui  n'est  qu'une  declaration  d'incompd- 
tence,  et  I'appel  veritable,  qui  repose  sur  I'id^e  que  le  tribunal  sup^rieur  a  une 
connaissance  supdrieure  du  droit,  en  vertu  de  laquelle  on  lui  accorde  le  pouvoir 
de  reformer  le  premier  jugement.  — Secretan,  475-6. 

"•Dans  I'appel,  on  defere  a  une  jurisdiction  supdiieure  le  jugement  rendu 
par  un  juge  inf^rieur;  la  cause,  d^j^  jugde  en  premiere  instance,  Test  de  nou- 
veau.  L'appel  suppose  I'existence  d'une  jugement,  dont  on  demande  la  refor- 
mation. La  defaulte  de  droit  suppose  que  le  proces  n'a  pas  ^t^  ou  n'a  pu  etre 
juge  ;  le  recours  au  suzerain,  dans  ce  cas,  a  pour  objet  qu'il  statue  sur  ce  proems, 
dont  son  vassal  n'a  pas  pris  connaissance,  et  c'est  dans  la  v^rite  des  mots,  une 
evocation.  II  en  resulte  une  difference  essentielle,  qui  a  dfi  faire  admettre  sans 
contestation  le  recours  pour  defaulte  de  droit,  meme  contre  les  grands  vassaux. 
Ce  recours  qui,  par  la  nature  des  choses,  ne  pouvait  etre  porte  que  devant  le 
roi,  ne  subordonnait  pas,  a  proprement  parler,  la  jurisdiction  de  ses  seigneurs  a 
celle  du  roi ;  il  n'avait  lieu  precisement  que  parce  qu'ils  refusaient  d'user  de 
leur  droit  de  justice  ;  ils  etaient  les  maitres  de  le  render  sans  objet,  en  faisant 
juger  la  cause  dans  leur  cour,  la  saine  raison  ne  permettant  pas  qu'il  put  exister 
des  proems,  ou  des  plaideurs,  qui  ne  trouveraient  pas  de  juges.  Les  lois  de  la 
feodalite  reprouvaient  un  tel  refus;  et  celui-li  seul  pouvait,  en  definitive, 
faire  justice  du  refus,  a.  cette  meme  feodalite  reconnaissait  les  droits  de  suze- 
rain.—  Pardessus,  79-80.     Cf.  Secretan,  476. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  41 

directly  or  remotely  seeking  redress.  This  institution  of  appeal 
does  not  imply  a  sort  of  supreme  feudal  court,  as  Mably  held 
would  be  required',  but  inasmuch  as  the  palatins  in  the  time  of 
Louis  VI.  were  beginning  to  become  an  inner  council^  and  the 
Parlement  of  Paris  was  originally  a  portion  of  the  curia  regis  set 
apart  to  hear  petitions,  is  it  not  possible  that  we  have,  in  this 
creation  of  Louis  VL,  almost  the  initiatory  step  in  the  creation  of 
that  body  ?  ^  Although  the  new  method  obtained  slowly,  the 
competence  of  the  royal  court  in  appeal  not  becoming  greatly 
effective  until  the  middle  of  the  thirteenth  century,  when  the 
lineaments  of  the  Parlement  grow  out  of  the  darkness  of  its 
origin,  still  the  honor  of  this  truly  royal  modification  of  the 
feudal  law  is  due  to  Louis  VI.'' 

The  next  important  step  in  the  evolution  of  the  Parlement 
must  have  been  when  the  court  became  a  stationary  body,  per- 
manently seated  at  Paris.  The  honor  of  making  such  a  change, 
however,    cannot    be    attributed    to    Louis    le    Gros.^       In    the 

'  See  Pardessus,  Livre  III.,  ch.  iii. 

'Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  199-200. 

^Ibid.,  II.,  327. 

^Langlois,  Revue  Hist.,  XLII.  (1890),  p.  99,  Les  Origines  du  Parlement  de 
Paris).  P'or  the  steps  in  tlie  progress  of  appeal,  see  p.  100  and  notes.  The 
competence  of  the  court  in  the  thirteenth  century  is  shown  in  Langlois,  Textes 
relatifs  a  VHistoire  du  Parlement,  Nos.  XXIII,  XXX. 

s  "  On  pourrait  croire  que  cette  mesure  de  rendre  la  cour  du  roi  sddentaire 
^  Paris  est  antdrieure  a  I'annde  1120,  si  Ton  considdrait  comme  v^ritables,  ou 
du  moins  comme  non  alterds,  deux  diplomes  de  Louis  VI. ,  du  12  Avril  1120,  et 
du  10  Janvier  1121  (H.  F.,  XVII.,  269)  en  faveur  de  I'abbaye  de  Tiron,  con- 
firmes  par  Louis  VII.  le  29  Mars  1164  {Ibid.,  272),  dans  lesquels  il  est  dit,  qu'en 
vertu  de  la  protection  et  sauvegarde  accord^e  k  cette  abbaye,  les  causes  qui 
I'interessent  seront  portdes  coram  magnis  prcesidentialibus  nostris  Parisius,  vel 
alibi,  ubi  nostra  prce-excellens  et  suprema  curia  residebit,  et  qu'il  en  sera  de  meme 
des  affaires  jugees  par  la  justice  de  ce  monast&re  entre  ses  hommes.  Mais  la 
faussetd  de  ces  dates  est  evidente,  qu'il  n'est  pas  possible  d'en  argumenter."  — 
Pardessus,  97-8.  Cf.  Les  Olim.,  t.  I.,  XXXIV. ;  BibliotMque  de  VEcole  des 
Charles,  third  series,  t.  V.,  516,  ff. —  Charles  fausses  de  I  abbaye  de  Tiron; 
Luchaire,  Annates,  appendix  VIII.  (p.  323). 

Luchaire  {Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  307)  has  this  to  say: — " A  partir  du  r&gne  de 
Louis  le  Gros,  Paris  devient  de  plus  en  plus  le  s^jour  habituel  du  souverain  et 
par  suite  le  si^ge  ordinaire  du  governement.     II  en  r^sulte  qu'en  fait,   et  sans 


42  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

increased  importance  given  the  court  owing  to  the  extension  of 
its  jurisdiction,  one  is  surprised  that  he  should  have  still  retained 
the  ambulatory'  character  of  the  court.  Perhaps,  though,  the 
very  activity  of  Louis  VI.  made  this  change  undesirable,  since  he 
always  sought  to  assume  personal  direction  of  the  proceedings. 
As  the  court  was  the  nascent  form  of  the  later  Parlement,  perma- 
nence, whenever  acquired,  must  have  hastened  the  course  begun 
in  the  establishment  of  appellate  jurisdiction. 

It  is  generally  supposed  that  the  institutions  of  feudalism 
were  fixed  and  well  defined,  whereas,  in  point  of  fact,  the  rela- 
tions of  high  suzerain,  vassal  and  rear  vassal  were  in  constant 
flux.""     From  time  to  time,  there  are   positive  changes  in  feudal 

qu'aucune  r^gle  ait  jamais  dte  dtablie  a  cet  ^gard,  la  plus  grande  partie  des 
procfes  soumis  a  la  cour  du  roi  sont  debattus  et  termines  a  Paris,  dans  le  palais 
meme  de  la  cit^.  On  pent  affirmer,  d'aprfes  le  releve  des  localites  ou  la  cour  du 
roi  a  exerce  ses  fonctions  judiciaires,  que,  sous  le  regne  de  Louis  VII.,  pour 
deux  ou  trois  proems  qui  sont  juges  a  Orleans  ou  a  Etampes,  quinze  sont  I'objet 
d'un  arret  rendu  a  Paris.  La  proportion  a  dii  ^videmment  s'accroitre  en  faveur 
de  la  capitale  sous  les  Cap^tiens  du  XIIP  siecle.  C'est  ainsi  que  peu  a  peu, 
par  la  force  meme  des  choses,  on  est  arriv^  a  la  ddtermination  d'un  lieu  fixe 
pour  les  sessions  du  Parlement."  See  in  Ibid.,  II.,  app.,  No.  XII,  the  list  of 
sessions  of  the  court  from  1137  to  1180.  With  the  above  of  Luchaire,  cf.  Lair, 
Des  Hautes  Cours  Politiques  en  France,  p.  5,  and  Aubert,  Le  Parlement  de  Paris 
de  Phillippe-le-Bel  a  Charles  VII.  {12/4-/422),  p.  7,  who  concur. 

'In  the  campaign  into  Auvergne  (Suger,  108-10)  the  court  is  actually  in 
the  field:  "Si  sic  judicaverint  regni  optimates,  fiat"  says  William  of  Aquitaine. 
Suger  continues  :  Super  his  igitur  rex  cum  optimatibus  regni  consulens,  dic- 
tante  justicia,  fidem,  juramentum,  obsidum  sufficientiam  suscipit  (p.  no). 

As  long  as  the  king's  court  was  a  movable  one,  the  king  carried  about 
with  him  the  original  text  of  the  law,  in  rolls  (rottili).  It  was  in  consequence 
of  the  seizure  of  a  number  of  these  by  Richard  Cceur  de  Lion,  5  July,  1194. 
that  the  idea  was  suggested  to  Philip  Augustus  of  preserving  the  text  of  all 
the  laws  as  state  archives,  and  of  opening  authentic  registers  of  decisions  in 
civil  and  criminal  cases.  Pfister,  Le  Rigne  de  Robert  le  Pieux,  p.  207.  The 
actual  account  of  this  event  is  in  Roger  de  Hoveden,  Regnum  Anglicarum 
Scriptores,  741  (Rolls  Series)  and  in  Guillaume  le  Breton,  H.  F.,  XVII.,  72.  Cf. 
also  Teulet,  Tresor  des  Chartes,  I.,  xxv. 

*  In  the  twelfth  century  the  count  of  Champagne,  who  originally  was  a 
homager  of  the  king  only,  held  partly  of  the  archbishop  of  Rheims,  partly  of 
the  bishops  of  Langres,  Chalons,  Auxerre,  Autun,  the  abbot  of  St.  Denis,  the 
duke  of  Burgundy,  the  Emperor — and  the  king.     Brussel,  I.,  367. 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  43 

law.  If  "  lordship  and  homage  .  .  .  were  the  links  in  the  chain  of 
steel  which  saved  the  world  from  being  dissolved  into  a  chaos  of 
jarring  elements,'"  nevertheless  the  form  and  nature  of  the 
links  were  changed,  if  not  from  year  to  year,  certainly  from 
century   to   century ;    new  measures  were   introduced,   old   ones 

taken  awa\\^ One  such  link  seems  to  have  been  forged  by  Louis 

le  Gros— fthat -of  liege  homage,'  an  institution  destined  at  a 
later  day  to  embroil  France  and  England  in  serious  conflict, 
when  the  memorable  struggle  between  Edward  III.  and  Philip 
of  Valois  turned  on  the  question  whether  the  English  king  was 
bound  to  do  simple  or  liege  homage  for  Guyenne.^ 

The  prolongation  and  importance  of  Louis  VI. 's  military 
expeditions  must  have  occasioned  this  new  obligation.  By  it  the 
vassal  was  held  to  personal  service,  irrespective  of  the  traditional 
forty  days,  or  of  the  territory  to  be  entered ;  hitherto  the  vassal 
had  not  been  bound  to  other  personal  service  and  could  even 
send  a  chevalier  in  his  stead.'' 

'Pollock,  Science  of  Politics.,  47. 

'  Henault,  I.,  196.  This  statement  needs  the  following  qualification  : 
The  term  liege  homage  occurs  in  texts  of  the  late  part  of  the  eleventh  century 
(Glasson,  IV.,  298.)  DuCange  cites  three  cases,  but  the  terms  homage  and 
liege  homage  are  used  convertibly,  and  the  documents  are  so  confused  as 
hardly  to  be  entitled  to  very  great  consideration  (Brussel,  I.,  109).  If  the 
creation  of  the  new  relation  is  not  due  to  Louis  le  Gros  (see  Tardif,  No.  388 : 
"  Stephane,  jure  perpetuo,  et  in  feodo  et  ut  ligio  homini  nostro  concedimus  "), 
the  strict  legal  definition,  as  well  as  insistence  upon  its  fulfilment,  seem  to  be 
due  to  him.  (See  Nouvelle  Revue  historique  de  droit  franfais  et  etranger, 
1883.  Vol.  VII.,  p.  659  —  Homme  Lige.)  However,  liege  homage  obtained 
but  very  slightly,  outside  of  the  royal  domain,  in  the  twelfth  century.  In  the 
time  of  Philip  Augustus,  the  Count  of  Champagne  did  .liege  homage  to  the  king, 
but  it  was  at  that  time  an  innovation.  (Glasson,  IV.,  292,  citing  Brussel,  I.,  116.) 

For  the  distinction  between  fidelity  and  homage,  which  are  often  con- 
fused, see  Brussel.  I.  19  ff.,  Luchaire,  Manuel,  186,  and  Viollet,  Hist,  du  Droit 
francais,  559~563,  which  gives  a  good  bibliography.  A  bottom  fidelity  was  a 
relation  far  surpassing  homage  in  dignity ;  it  implied  a  moral  bond  of  loyalty, 
and  high  position.  Homage  carried  with  it  all  the  engagements  of  vassalage, 
but  one  might  be  z.fidelis  without  being  a  vassal.  All  vassals  were  necessarily 
fideles,  but  2X\fideles  were  not  vassals. — Cf.  Flach,  I.,  245. 

3Lalanne,  Diet.  Hist.,  p.  997. 

*  Quant    a  I'hommage    lige,  c'dtait  [le    plus   grave  [de  [[  tous    et    il    ^tait 


44  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

On  the  other  hand,  Louis  VI.  raised  the  position  of  king  of 
France  far  higher  than  hitherto,  by  enunciating  the  doctrine,  the 
king  can  do  homage  to  none.  This  doctrine,  that  the  crown 
owed  fealty  to  no  one,  naturally  followed  from  his  definition  of 
royalty  as  a  power  original  in  type.'  He  declined  to  do  homage 
for  the  Vexin"",  which  was  a  vassal  county  of  St.   Denis,  on  the 

surtout  relatif  au  service  militaire ;  rhommage  lige  devait  le  service  mili- 
taire  en  personne  et  pendant  toute  la  duree  de  la  guerre ;  tandis  que  le 
vassal  ordinaire  n'dtait  tenu  du  service  militaire  que  pendant  quarante  jours  i 
partir  de  celui  ou  Ton  avait  dtd  assemble ;  de  sorte  qu'au  bout  de  ce  temps  11 
pouvait  rentrer  dans  son  chateau.  En  outre,  il  ne  devait  pas  le  service  per- 
sonnel, et  pouvait  envoyer  un  chevalier  a  sa  place.  (Glasson,  IV.,  296.  Cf. 
Lalanne,  Diet.  Hist,  ut  supra.) 

'  Cf.  Suger,  80. 

2  Vilcassini  siquidem  (quod  est  inter  Isaram  et  Ettam)  nobilem  comitatum, 
quem  perhibent  immunitates  ecclesise  proprium  beati  Dionysii  feodum,  quem 
etiam  rex  Francorum,  Ludovicus  Philippi,  accelerans  contra  imperatorem 
Romanum  insurgentem  in  regnum  Francorum,  in  pleno  capitulo  beati  Dionysii 
professus  est  se  ab  eo  habere  et  jure  signiferi,  si  rex  non  esset,  hominium  ei  debere. 
— CEuvres  de  Suger  {Soc.  de  VHist.  de  F.)  par  Lecoy  de  la  Marche.  Suger, 
De  rebus  in  administratione  sua  gestis  (ch.  iv.,  pp.  161-2).  Cf.  Eclaii^cissements. 
et  observations,  pp.  442-3.  Felibien,  Hist,  de  Pabbaye  de  Saint-Dems ;  also  (Feli- 
bien)  Oriflamme,  154,  ff. ;  Tardif,  No.  391  ;  Combes,  133;  Henault,  I.,  180; 
Acad,  des  Inscrip.,  L.,  p.  499.  The  honor  of  this  truly  royal  act  has  been  gen- 
erally attributed  to  Philip  Augustus,  as  in  Walker,  9.  The  large  territorial 
acquisition  by  Philip  Augustus  gave  opportunity  for  numerous  applications  of 
this  principle,  but  the  germ  of  the  principle  is  found  in  the  act  recorded  above 
of  Louis  VI. 

In  the  Bibliothique  de  PAcole  des  Chartes  (XXXIV.  p.  244  ff.,  1873) 
M.  VioUet  publishes  Une  grande  Chronique  latine  de  Saint- Denis  {Observations 
pour  servir  a  Fhistoire  critique  des  CEuvres  de  Suger).  The  account  there 
differs  somewhat  from  that  quoted  above :  — "  Dixit  se  (Louis  VI.)  more 
priscorum  regum  auriflammam  vellejsumere  ab  altari,  affirmando  quod  hujus 
bajulatio  ad  comitem  Vulcassini  de  jure  spectabat,  et  quod  de  eodem  com- 
itatu,  nisi  auctoritas  regia  obsisteret,  ecclesite,  homagium  facere  teneba- 
tur"  (p.  245),  Candor  confesses  that  a  difficulty  arises  from  this  passage, 
as  M.  Viollet  admits :  "  Les  mots  more  priscorum  regum  pourront  induire  a. 
penser  que  ce  passage  est  post^rieur  k  Suger,  car  le  Vexin  fran9ais  ayant  €t€ 
r^uni  i  la  couronne  sous  Philippe  I",  I'usage  deporter  I'oriflamme  dtait, 
dira-t-on,  tout  nouveau  pour  les  rois  de  France  au  temps  de  Louis  VI.  et  de 
Suger.  Suger  aurait-il  done  consid^r^  cet  usage  comme  bien  ant^rieur  i 
Phillippe  I"'  et  4  Louis  VI.  {priscorum  regum)  ?  Mais  une  tradition  aussi 
fausse  n'a  pu  se  faire  jour  que  longtemps  aprfes  Louis  VI. ;  et  d'ailleurs,  dans 


THE  COURT  AND  ITS  JUDICIAL  FUNCTIONS.  45 

ground  of  the  superiority  of  the  king  to  any  suzerain,  lay  or 
ecclesiastical.  The  importance  of  this  act  of  Louis  VI.  can 
hardly  be  estimated  too  highly.  Its  significance  lies  in  the  fact 
that  it  was  an  assertion  of  superiority  in  kind,  of  the  king,  over 
all ;  he  was  his  own  peer ;  none  on  the  soil  of  France  was  his 
suzerain. 

le  meme  phrase,  le  roi  consid^re  ce  droit  comme  lui  dtant  echu  par  rinterm^diare 
des  comtes  du  Vexin;  il  y  a  la  une  contradiction  flagrante  qui  dec&le  un 
rajeunissements  posterieur  a  Suger.  Le  lecteur  reste  libre  de  s'en  tenir  a  cette 
objection  et  de  mettre  ce  passage  au  nombre  des  rajeunissements  que  j'ai 
signales  tout-a-l'heure ;  mais,  pour  mon  compte,  je  ne  m'arrete  pas  a  cette 
difficult^  et  voici  ma  r^ponse  :  La  phrase  qu'on  vient  de  lire,  loin  de  rec^ler  une 
erreur,  parait  contenir,  en  abrege',  les  points  fondamentaux  de  I'histoire  exacte 
de  I'oriflamme.  En  effet,  on  se  trompe  en  disant  que  les  rois  de  France 
port&rent  I'oriflamme  depuis  annexion  du  Vexin  et  non  ant^rieurement.  Toute- 
fois,  cette  annexion  a  jou^  un  certain  role  dans  I'histoire  de  I'oriflamme,  et  ce 
role  est  ici  relatd  .  .  .  Certes,  un  pareil  expose  est  trfes-vague  et  incomplet ; 
nous  ne  tenons  gu^re  ici  qui  les  extr^mitds  d'une  chaine  dont  les  anneaux 
intermediaires  nous  ^chappent ;  mais  e'en  est  assez  pour  que  nous  nous  gardions 
de  rejeter  comme  n'ayant  pu  etre  ^crite  par  Suger  une  phrase  qui  prdcisement 
relate  ces  deux  donndes  fondamentales.  Ce  passage  a  pu,  d'ailleurs,  etre 
retouchd  quant  a  la  redaction ;  on  est  surpris  d'y  trouver  le  nom  de  Suger ; 
le  style  direct  et  premiere  personne  seraient  plus  naturels." 

See  further  on  this  act  (Tardif,  No.  379);  Suger,  105,  note  I,  and  Lebeuf, 
Histoire  de  Paris,  IIL,  250  ff. 


CHAPTER  IV. 
ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION. 

CENTRAL    ADMINISTRATION. 

Of  the  administrative  body  of  the  king,  the  features  of  which 
may  be  vaguely  traced  in  the  beginning  of  the  eleventh  century,' 
five  members  were  important :  the  seneschal,  the  butler,  the  con- 
stable, the  chamberlain,  and  the  chancellor.'  Of  these  the  senes- 
chal and  the  chancellor  were  by  far  the  most  influential.^ 
Besides  administrative  and  judicial  authority,  they  possessed 
domains  and  benefices,  sometimes  of  vast  extent." 

The  seneschal  was  the  director-general  of  the  realm.  His 
prototype  was  the  ancient  mayor  of  the  palace.  He  was  the 
second  person  in  the  kingdom,^  and  in  case  of  a  weak  king,  like 

I  Luchaire,  Manuel,  257. 

*  It  is  difficult  to  determine  the  order  of  precedence  of  these  officers.  The 
chancellor  always  closes  the  list,  which,  as  above  given,  is  the  order  in  the 
reign  of  Louis  le  Gros,  when  their  character  and  position  are  most  defined. 
(Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  164.  Langlois,  Textes  Relatifs'dU  Parlement  de  Paris, 
No.  VIII.)  The  butler  and  constable  appear  in  1043.  Four  years  later  are 
found  the  sene.schal  and  chamberlain,  and  all  five  sign  together  for  the  first  time 
in  1060.  (Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  167.)  Their  attributes  are,  at  first,  some- 
what indistinct;  in  the  eleventh  century  there  begins  to  be  a  separation  of 
duties,  and  in  the  reign  of  Philip  I.  the  institution  tends  to  regulate  itself.  But, 
as  pointed  out,  the  documents  are  obscured  by  a  host  of  intrusive  names. 
Under  Philip  I.  there  appears,  for  a  short  time  an  officer  (dispensator)  who 
seems  to  have  been  not  unlike  the  modern  butler. — Luchaire,  Manuel,  588. 

3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  522.     On  the  chancellor,  see  Brussel,  I.,  535,  628. 

4  Luchaire,  Manuel,  260;  Brussel  I.,  629. 

s  Simon,  seneschal  of  Philip  I.,  is  styled  "  consul  et  regis  Francorum  pri- 
mipilus."— H.  F.,  XV.,  541.  The  account  of  Hugh  de  Cleers  (H.  F.,  XII., 
493),  regarding  the  institution  of  the  seneschalship  and  the  relations  of  the 
Count  of  Anjou  to  Louis  VI.  may  be  considered  apocryphal,  although  accepted 
by  Sismondi,   V,,    135  ff;  Combes.  77-8;    and  other   early   historians.     The 

46 


OF  TKB 

ITNIVERSITY 

ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION.  47 

Louis  VII.  he  might  become  the  controlling  will  in  the  adminis- 
tration. He  had  control  of  the  machinery  of  local  administra- 
tion, the  supervision  of  the  prevots  and  other  agents  of  the  king ; 
he  acted  as  president  of  the  curia  regis  in  case  of  the  absence  of 
the  king,  and  on  occasion,  took  the  field  as  royal  commandant.' 

The  power  of  these  officers,  especially  the  seneschal,  united 
with  the  evil  of  the  hereditability  of  fiefs,^  in  the  twelfth  century 
became  a  serious  menace  to  the  crown. '  In  order  to  reduce  the 
danger,  the  kings  had  recourse  either  to  violent  deprivation  of 
title,  or  the  policy,  more  and  more  frequently  adopted,  of  leaving 
an  office  vacant  for  a  number  of  years,  or  of  dividing  its  duties, 
thus  leaving  the  holder  nothing  but  the  ascription  of  authority.* 

Of  the  three  lesser  officers  their  titles  sufficiently  describe  the 
nature  of  their  duties.  The  chamberlain  seems  to  have  sunk 
the  most  rapidly  in  dignity  and  power.  Under  Henry  I.  he  com- 
mands the  army;  at  the  end  of  the  eleventh  century  the  senes- 
chal has  supplanted  him,  although  he  is  still  an  influential  per- 
sonage ;  under  Louis  VL  he  has  slipped  down  to  third  place.^ 

The  constable  was  a  survival  of  the  old  marshal,  and  is  first 
mentioned  in  the  time  of  Henry  L  (1043).  He  was  then,  as  the 
name  implies,  master  of  the  horse.*    Later  certain  minor  judicial 

writer  attempts  to  prove  the  office  at  the  time  of  Louis 'VI.  an  hereditary 
fief  in  the  house  of  Anjou,  who  held  the  place,  as  it  were,  ex  officio,  and  that 
the  actual  incumbent  did  him  (the  Count  of  Anjou)  homage.  The  account  is 
singularly  full  of  details,  and  describes  the  interview  of  Louis  VI.  with  Foulque, 
and  the  subsequent  homage  of  Garland,  in  11 18.  But  the  purported  facts  are 
sustained  by  no  charter.  The  probability  is  that  the  concessions  pretended  to 
have  been  made  by  Louis  VI.  were  fabricated  between  11 50  and  1168  in  the 
interests  of  Henry  II.  of  England  and  Count  of  Anjou,  the  rival  of  Louis  VII. 
See  Luchaire,  Annales,  325-6:  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  x,  n.  2  and  p.  180. 
'Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  177-184. 

*  Brussel  (I.,  71).  thinks  that  benefices  were  hereditary  in  the  time  of  Hugh 
Capet,  and  cites  the  famous  letter  of  Eudes  II.,  count  of  Chartres  to  Robert  II. 
According  to  Luchaire  {Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  4  ff.)  the  kings  struggled  against  the 
inheritance  of  fiefs  until  the  second  half  of  the  eleventh  century. 

3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  260. 
*Ibid.  519. 

5  Luchaire,  Manuel,  523.  He  is  called  "princeps  exercitus  Francorum." — 
Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  169,  citing  H.  F.  XL,  207. 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  171. 


48  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

powers  were  given  him,  which  were  increased  as  the  seneschal 
was  deprived  of  his  power.  Finally  he  succeeded  to  the  military 
rights  of  the  seneschal,  and  in  the  fourteenth  century  was  chief 
of  the  royal  forces.' 

The  butler  never  seems  to  have  enjoyed  the  measure  of  power 
that  the  seneschal  and  chancellor  had.  In  early  Capetian  times 
his  name  was  most  often  after  that  of  the  seneschal ;  but  in  the  time 
of  Philip  I.  he  signs  next  to  the  last.*  The  place  never  seems  to 
have  been  a  menace,  for  even  after  the  revolution  in  the  palace, 
under  Louis  VII.  and  Philip  Augustus,  it  was  attached  to  the 
family  of  La  Tour,  of  Senlis.^ 

The  crisis  in  what  was  the  immediate  household  of  the  king, 
fell  in  the  reign  of  Louis  le  Gros,  and  was  brought  about  by  the 
inordinate  ambition  of  Stephen  de  Garland.  History  affords 
few  cases  of  so  complete  a  political  ascendency  acquired  by  the 
members  of  a  single  family  as  that  attained  by  the  brothers  Gar- 
land during  the  reign  of  Louis  VI.  The  exigencies  of  circum- 
stance and  the  rare  abilities  of  the  four  brothers,  Anselm,  William, 
Stephen  and  Gilbert,  alike  account  for  the  fact.  When  Louis  VI. 
began  to  reign  he  was  assailed  by  enemies  both  open  and  secret; 
even  his  own  kindred  plotted  against  him."*  To  this  was  added 
the  hatred  of  the  house  of  Rochefort,  the  turbulence  of  the 
seigneur  of  Puiset  and  of  many  another  baron,  the  traditional 
enmity  of  the  Anglo-Norman  king,  and  the  hostility  of  the  counts 
of  Anjou  and  Blois.  In  the  midst  of  such  trials,  the  intelligence 
and  ability  of  the  Garlands  stood  Louis  in  good  stead.^  Anselm 
was  a  faithful  seneschal  until  the  day  when  he  fell  in  the  service 
of  his  master  in  the  third  siege  of  the  chateau  de  Puiset.^  Will- 
iam succeeded  him,  and  was  present  at  the  memorable  defeat  of 
Brenneville,^  August  20,   11 19.     Stephen,  meanwhile,  was  chan- 

'Luchaire,  Manuel,  526.  ''Ibid.,  525. 

sLuchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  177  On  these  lesser  officers,  see  Brussel,  I., 
628-635. 

*Ord.  Vit.  IV.,  196  ff.     Sugar,  c.  xvii. 

s  Sugar,  21,  36.  ^Ibid.,  79. 

7Luchaire,  Remarques  sur  la  succession  des  Grands  Officiers  de  la  Couronne 
(1108-1180),  p.  I. 


ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION.  49 

cellor,  an  ofifice  which  became  his  ecclesiastical  pretensions,  for  the 
chancellorship  was  never  held  by  a  layman.  It  was  he  who,  before 
Suger  became  a  prominent  figure  in  the  government,  first  moulded 
the  policy  of  the  king  in  his  conflict  with  the  denationalizing 
reform  party  in  the  church.' 

In  1 1 20  William  de  Garland  died.  Then  an  extraordinary 
arrangement  of  the  royal  household  was  made.  In  order  to  fill 
the  vacant  seneschalship,  Louis  VI.  advanced  his  chancellor,' 
allowing  him,  at  the  same  time,  to  retain  the  more  clerkly  position. 
A  change  so  unique  elicited  astonishment  even  in  that  age  of 
men-at-arms,  —  a  churchman  in  the  first  military  rank  of  the 
realm  !^  This  double  investiture,  continuing  for  seven  years, 
fattened  the  ambition  of  the  churchman.  As  chancellor  and  chief 
chaplain  he  enjoyed  the  livings  of  a  vast  number  of  ecclesiastical 
benefices,  dependent  immediately  upon  the  crown.  He  was  arch- 
deacon of  Paris,"  archdeacon  of  Notre-Dame  de  Paris,^  deacon  of 
Saint-Samson  d'Orleans,*  deacon  of  the  abbey  of  Sainte-Gene- 
vieve,^  deacon  of  the  chapter  of  Sainte-Croix  d'Orleans,*  and 
deacon  of  Saint-Aignan  d'Orleans.'  In  order  that  he  might  be 
able  to  carry  the  church  of  Orleans  in  his  pocket,  as  it  were,  he 

'Luchaire,  Louisle  Groset  son  Palatins,  Revue  Hist.,  XXXVII.,  1888. 

2  Luchaire,  Rernarques  sur  la  succession  des  Grands  Officiers  de  la  Couronne 
(1108-1180),  p.  II. 

3"Quissane  non  miretur  imo  et  detestetur  unius  esse  personae  et  armatum 
ducere  militiam  et  alba  stolaque  indutum,  in  medio  ecclesiae  pronunciare  evan- 
gelium  ?  Magis  honorabile  ducit  putari  se  militem,  curiam  ecclesiae  praefert."— 
St.  Bernard,  Epistle  78.      H.  F.,  XV.,  547.  Cf,  Chron.  Maurin,  H.  F.,  XII.,.76-7: 

Interea  defuncto  Willelmo  Anselli  Dapiferi  germano,  Stephanus  Cancel- 
larius.  .  .  .  major  regiae  domus  effectus.  Hoc  retroactis  generationabus  fuerat 
inauditum,  ut  homo,  qui  Diaconatus  fungebatur  officio,  militiae  simul  post 
regem  duceret  principatum.  Hie  vir  industrius  et  saecularii  praeditussapientia, 
cum  multis  ecclesiasticorum  honorum  redditibus,  turn  familiaritate  regis,  quam 
sic  habebat,  ut  ei  potius  a  quibusdam,  diceretur  imperare  quam  servire,  tem- 
porali  felicitate  supra  caeteros  mortates  nostris  temporibus  efflorebat. 

4  Luchaire,  Annales,  Nos.  53,  206. 

^Ibid.,  Nos.  272,  284. 

^Ibid.,  No.  62. 

''Ibid.,  Nos.  94,  109. 

^  Ibid.,  Nos.  125,  173. 

^Ibid.,  No.  176. 


50  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

had  prevailed  upon  the  king  to  advance  Hugh  of  Orleans  to  the 
bishopric  of  Laon  and  confer  the  deaconate  of  the  cathedral 
church  upon  himself.'  But  he  aspired  to  a  bishopric.  In  iioo 
he  had  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  secure  that  of  Beauvais." 
In  1 1 14,  when  Geoffroi,  its  bishop,  died,  he  demanded  the  place. 
But  pope  Pascal  II.,  who  was  no  lover  of  the  priestly  politician 
because  of  his  hostility  to  the  Clugny  reform  movement,  as  well 
as  on  account  of  his  unbounded  craving  for  power,  was  scandal- 
ized at  the  chancellor's  request.  The  action  of  the  pontiff  elicited 
from  Stephen  the  haughty  rejoinder  that  he  did  not  serve  the 
king  so  much  as  govern  him.^ 

At  last  the  ambition  of  the  seneschal  overreached  itself.  Like 
his  predecessors  and  colleagues  in  the  royal  household,  he  sought 
to  retain  the  seneschalship  in  the  Garland  family.  As  an  ecclesi- 
astic, he  could  not  transmit  the  office  directly;  but  in  1127  he 
gave  his  niece  in  marriage  to  Amauri  de  Montfort,  together  with 
the  chateau  de  Rochefort  and  the  assurance  that  her  husband 
should  succeed  him.*  The  king  evidently  was  not  cognizant  of 
the  plan.  It  was  a  crisis  in  the  history  of  the  monarchy.  Would 
the  king  allow  a  place  of  so  much  power  to  be  disposed  of  without 
his  consent?  Would  he  suffer  himself  to  be  dictated  to?  Would 
he  dare  allow  the  vicious  principle  of  hereditability  of  fiefs  to 
become  attached  to  the  highest  dignity  of  the  realm?  The 
attempt  of  the  seneschal  was  a  grave  blunder.  Louis  le  Gros' 
sluggish  suspicions  were  at  last  aroused.  Stephen  was  deprived 
of  his  honors  and  driven  from  the  court ^  with  his  brother  Gil- 
bert, the  butler.*  Stung  by  the  disgrace,  Stephen  and  his  accom- 
plice made  common  cause  with  Henry  I.  of  England  and 
Thibaud  IV.,  the  Count  of  Blois.^  The  strain  on  the  monarchy 
was  intense.  The  king  had  besides  to  face  the  now  open  hostility 
of  the  reform  clergy.     Paris    lay  under  an  interdict.^     Henry  I. 

'Luchaire,  ^««a/^j,  No.  133.  ^  Ibid. ,l>io.  17. 

3  Chron.  Maurin,  H.  F.,  XII.,  73. 

4Suger,  116.     Chron.  Maurin,  H.  F.  XII.,  77. 

sSuger,  116. 

®  Luchaire,  Remarques  sur  la  Succession  des  Grands  Officiers  de  la  Couronne, 

7Suger,  117.     Chron.  Maurin,  H.  F.,  XII.,  77. 

^  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  439. 


ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION.  5 1 

hovered  on  the  French  border.'  The  surrounding  country  was 
pillaged  by  the  outlawed  Garlands.''  Ralph,  the  count  of  Verman- 
dois,  cousin  and  staunch  ally  of  Louis,  had  fallen  in  the  siege  of 
the  chateau  de  Livri,  the  seat  of  the  house  of  Garland.^  If  ever 
Louis  VI.  merited  the  title  of  "Wide-awake"  (/"^m//^)*  it  was 
then.  Honorius  11.  was  coaxed  into  rescinding  the  interdict, 
to  the  deep  chagrin  of  St.  Bernard  and  the  reformers.^  Profiting 
by  a  moment  of  calm,  Louis  took  care  to  have  his  son  Philip 
associated  with  him  in  the  government,*  that  the  question  of 
succession  might  be  assured.  Then  he  turned  his  arms  against 
the  rebels.  After  a  desultory  conflict  of  four  years,  Stephen 
succumbed  to  the  untiring  energy  of  the  king,  (1132)^  and  was 
restored  to  the  chancellor's  desk.  His  political  role  was  ended ; 
his  influence  and  power  had  passed  to  abler  and  safer  hands,  and 
at  his  death  the  seal  of  his  ofitice  passed  quietly  over  to  Algrin, 
the  vice-chancellor.^ 

This  revolt  in  the  palace,  which  culminated  in  the  fall  of  the 
Garlands,  marks  a  decisive  point  in  the  history  of  the  monarchy. 
The  continuity  of  office  was  broken.  In  this  respect  Louis  le 
Gros  founded  the  traditions  which  were  followed  out  by  his  suc- 
cessors.^ 

'Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  414.  "^  Ibid.,  No.  428. 

'i  Ibid.,  No.  420.     Suger,  117. 

■♦Louis  is  called  by  turns  " le  Gros'"  {pinguis,  crasstis),  which  is  most 
common ;  "  the  Fighter  "  {le  Batailleur) ;  "  the  Great "  {le  Grand) ;  "  the 
White"  {le  Blanc),  alluding  to  his  pale  complexion,  due  to  poisoning  in  youth 
(Ord.  Vit.  IV.,  197);  and  he  is  also  called  "  le  Jzisticier.''' 

5  See  the  letter  of  St.  Bernard,  H.  F.,  XV.,  545,  550. 

*  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  433.  Philip  Augustus  was  the  first  monarch  of 
France  who  did  not  have  his  successor  crowned  in  his  lifetime. — Brussel,  I.,  66. 

7  Luchaire,  ^««a/«,  No.  487.  The  principal  episode  of  this  war  was  the 
capture  of  Livri ;    see  Bibliotktque  de  TEcole  des  Charles,  XXXVIIL,  480. 

^  Luchaire,  Remarques  stir  la  Succession  des  Grand  Officiers  de  la  Couronne, 
P-  34-       " 

'"The  consideration  of  the  great  offices  of  the  crown  under  Philip  Augus- 
tus has  shown  the  completion  under  him  of  a  process  already  begun  by  his 
grandfather  and  father.  The  great  court  offices,  which  the  limited  extent  of  the 
royal  possessions  under  the  early  Capetians  and  the  intimate  association  of  the 
nobles  of  the  He  de  France  with  the  king  in  the  administration  of  the  govern- 
ment made  useful  under  Henry  L  or  Philip  I.,  had  proved  dangerous  to  the 


52  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

After  the  fall  of  the  Garlands  for  four  years  the  seneschal's 
place  was  vacant,'  and  then  another  faithful  count  of  Vermandois 
was  appointed. ""  But  the  preponderant  influence  in  the  realm 
now  rested  with  Suger.3 

Suger's  position  was  unique/  Up  to  this  time,  warlike  char- 
acter, wealth,  and  achievement  had  been  the  qualifications  for  the 
ofifice  of  chief  minister.  Suger  was  of  humble  birth,^  slight  of 
stature,  and  in  health  was  not  strong ;  but  he  had  a  luminous 
intellect,  and  a  will  which  prompted  him  to  act  with  judgment 
and    despatch.     The    first   relations    of    Louis   and    the    future 

growing  strength  of  the  monarchy  and  unwieldy  in  administrative  practice. 
Louis  VI.  and  Louis  VIL  had  tried  to  limit  their  power.  Philip  Augustus  prac- 
tically abolished  the  two  posts  of  greatest  prominence,  and,  by  his  employment  of 
men  of  lower  position,  made  the  three  remaining  offices  chiefly  honorary.  No 
feature  of  this  policy  was  original  with  Philip.  It  was  that  of  his  grandfather 
and  father. — Walker,  55.  On  the  position  of  the  seneschal  after  Philip  Augus- 
tus, see  Pardessus,  268-270. 

Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  England,  Vol.  I.,  chap.  xi.  pp.  380-1,  makes  an  instruc- 
tive comparative  study  of  contemporary  English  and  French  institutions :  "In 
England  ....  where  the  amount  of  public  business  was  increasing  rapidly  in 
consequence  of  the  political  changes,  and  where  it  was  of  the  utmost  importance 
to  avoid  the  creation  of  hereditary  jurisdictions,  it  was  absolutely  necessary  that 
a  new  system  should  be  devised.  The  same  need  was  felt  in  France  ;  and  the 
same  tide  of  events  which  threw  the  administration  here  into  the  hands  of  Bishop 
Roger,  brought  the  management  of  affairs  there  into  the  hands  of  the  Abbot  Suger. 
In  each  case  we  see  an  ecclesiastical  mayor  of  the  palace ;  a  representative  of 
the  king  in  all  capacities :  lieutenant  in  his  absence,  chief  agent  in  his  pres- 
ence ;  a  prime  minister  in  legal,  financial,  and  even  military  affairs,  but  prevented 
by  his  spiritual  profession  from  founding  a  family  of  nobles,  or  withdrawing 
from  the  crown  the  powers  which  he  had  been  commissioned  to  sustain." 

'The  writs  read  vices  dapiferi  /^j^/oVw^.— Luchaire,  Manuel,  521. 

'Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  185.  ^Ibid. 

*  Suger's  eminent  position  is  expressed  in  many  ways  by  his  biographer: 
"  Preeerat  palatio ;  "  "  nee  ilium  a  claustri  cura  prohiberat  curia,  nee  a  consiliis 
principum  hunc  excusaret  monasterium  ;  "  "  cumque  ab  eo  jura  dictarentur  nullo 
unquam  pretio  declinavit  a  recto  ;  "  "  prjecipua  regni  incumberent  negotia ;  " 
"ex  eo  siquidem  tempore,  quo  primum  regiis  est  adhibitus  consiliis,  usque 
advitse  illius  terminum  constat  regnum  semper  floruisse  et  in  melius  atque 
amplius,  dilatatis  terminis  et  hostibus  subjugatis,  fuisse  provectum.  Quo  sub- 
lato  de  medio  statim  sceptrum  regni  gravem  ex  illius  absentia  sensit  jacturam." 
Willelmus — Vita  Sugerii,  Liber  I.,  passim. 

s  Suger,  Introd.,  p.  i. 


ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION.  53 

minister  date  from  their  school  days  in  the  fine  old  Capetian 
abbey  of  St.  Denis.'  When  Suger  was  appointed  min- 
ister he  had  served  a  long  apprenticeship.  He  had  been  episco- 
pal prevot  of  Berneval-by-the-sea,'  in  Normandy,  and  later  of 
Touri,3  on  the  grand  route  from  Chartres  to  Orleans.  Here 
Suger  was  forced  to  assume  the  role  of  a  warrior.  Touri  was  fast 
being  reduced  to  a  waste  by  the  depredations  of  the  lord  of 
Puiset,  whose  castle  was  hard  by.''  Here  also  began  Suger's 
public  career.  In  11 18  he  was  sent  on  a  diplomatic  mission  to 
Pope  Gelasius  H.,  then  at  Maguelonne.^  Twice ^  he  was  sent  to 
Rome  itself.  When  Henry  V.  the  emperor  died,  all  western  Europe 
awaited  with  anxiety  the  new  election.  Frederick  of  Swabia, 
Conrad  of  Franconia  and  Lothar,  Count  of  Suplinberg,  were 
candidates.^  For  France  the  issue  of  the  election  was  important. 
Henry  had  been  hostile  to  France.  Would  the  new  emperor  con- 
tinue his  policy?  Frederick  was  his  nephew.  The  peace  of 
France  therefore  required  that  Frederick  be  defeated.  Suger 
believed  that  the  juncture  demanded  his  presence  at  Maintz,  and 

»  Suger,  Introd.,  p.  i. 

'  Huguenin,  10.  Huguenin  thinks  it  is  not  unlikely  that  Suger's  knowledge 
of  law  and  diplomacy  was  here  acquired.  "Le  religieux  se  trouve  ainsi  en  com- 
munication avec  le  peuple  le  plus  renomm^,  au  moyen-age,  pour  la  science 
juridique,  et  il  a  lui-meme  un  tribunal  oil  il  prononce  des  jugements.  Initid  ^ 
la  coutume  de  Normandie  et  aux  lois  de  Guillaume  le  Conqu^rant,  il  ne  pent  se 
trouver  sans  doute  a  une  meilleure  dcole,  pour  se  perfectionner  dans  la  science 
du  droit,  pour  saisir  les  finesses  et  attendre  ^toutes  les  profondeurs  de  la  juris- 
prudence .  .  .  .  Le  Idgiste  se  montre  d^jk  bien  visiblement  dans  Suger," — pp. 
lo-il. 

^Ibid.,  22. 

♦  Tauriacus  igitur  famosa  Beati  Dionysii  villa,  caput  quidem  aliarum ;  et 
propria  et  specialis  sedes  Beati  Dionysii,  peregrinis  et  mercatoribus  seu  quibus- 
cumque  viatoribus  alimenta  cibariorum  in  media  strata,  lassis  etiam  quietem 
quiete  ministrans,  intolerabilibus  dominorum  prsefati  castri  Puteoli  angariis 
usque  adeo  miserabiliter  premebatur  ut .  .  .  .  jam  colonis  pene  destituta  langue- 
ret  ....  annonam  et  talliam  sibi  primum,  deinde  dapifero  suo,  deinde  prsepos- 
ito  suo,  rusticorum  vectigalibus  ad  castrum  deferri  cogeret." — Suger,  De  rebus 
in  adtninistratione,  c,  xii. 

s  Suger,  93. 

^  Ibid.,  69,  99-100. 

^  Hist,  du  Roi  Louis  VII.,  c.  2.     Huguenin,  68. 


54  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

although  he  had  no  official  voice  in  the  diet,  he  contrived  to  win 
the  favor  of  the  grand  chancellor  of  the  empire,  the  archbishop 
Adalbert,  who  directed  the  election.'  Adalbert  threw  his  influence 
in  favor  of  Lothar  of  Saxony,  an^  the  hostility  between  the 
two  great  sections  of  the  empire  of  Charles  the  Great  was  laid  for 
a  season.  The  great  abbot's  international  influence  also  extended 
to  England.  Henry  I.  honored  him  with  his  confidence,  and 
sought  his  advice.*  And  yet,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  while 
Louis  VI.  reigned,  Suger  was  never  more  than  the  abbot  of  St. 
Denis.  He  bore  no  secular  title,  even  when  the  direction  of  the 
state  was  in  his  hands.^  He  was  neither  seneschal  nor  chancellor.'* 
In  1 132  Ralph  of  Vermandois  replaced  Stephen  de  Garland 
as  seneschal.  He  added  strength  to  the  office  without  danger  to 
the  monarchy.  He  was,  by  the  situation  of  his  fief,  the  tradi- 
tional foe  of  the  houses  of  Champagne  and  Coucy.^  It  was 
through  his  solicitation,  backed  by  substantial  help,  that  Louis 
VI.  undertook  (1128)  the  campaign  which  at  last  reduced  Thomas 
de  Marie. ^  In  11 32,  by  an  alliance  which  nothing  but  political 
considerations  could  have  prompted,  Enguerran,  the  heir  of  the 
house  of  Coucy,  married  the  niece  of  the  seneschal,  and  the  inter- 
ests of  the  Capetian  monarchy  became  the  interests  of  that  his- 
toric family,^  whose  once  proud  motto  was — 

"Je  ne  suis  roy  ne  comte  aussy, 
Je  suis  le  Sire  de  Coucy." 

'  Huguenin,  69.  "  Ego  Maynardus  cum  Suggerio  ....  in  prsesentia  D. 
Alberti  venerabilis  Maguntini  archiepiscopi,  in  illo  celebri  colloquio  quod  de 
electione  Imperatoris  apud  Maguntiam  habitum  est,  banc  pacis  compositionem 
feci."  etc. — Cartul.  de  Saint  Denis,  t.  II.,  p.  475.  See  the  account  given  in 
Hist,  du  Roi  Louis  VLL,  c.  2,  and  notes. 

'"Familiarem  me  habebat  (Henricus),  venienti  t-tiam  ....  occurebat,  et 
quod  multos  suorum  celeret  de  reformatione  pacis,  saepius  mihi  aperiebat.  Unde 
crebro,  Deo  auxiliante,  contigit  nostra  labore  de  multis  guerris  et  implicatis 
multorum  almulorum  machinamentis  ad  bonam  pacis  compositionem  pervenire. 
{Sugerii  epist.  ad  Gaudef.  comit.     Andegav.,  H.  Y.,  XV.,  521). 

3H.  F.,  XII.,  112. 

4  Luchaire,  Lnst.  Mon.,  I.,  185,  192-3,. 

s  Luchaire,  Louis  le  Gros  et  son  Palatins,  Revue  Hist.,  xxxvii,  (1890)  p.  269. 

'Suger,  1 1 4-6. 

^  Continuator,  Prcemonstr.,  H.  F.,  xiii,  329.     Enguerran  was  present  at  the 


ADMINISTRATIVE  ORGANIZATION.  55 

LOCAL    ADMINISTRATION. 

With  the  development  of  the  central  administration  there  had 
been  a  corresponding  —  even  earlier  —  evolution  of  local  admin- 
istrative forms.  These  local  officers  were  the  prevots  and  their 
subordinates,  vicars,  beadles,  and  the  mayors  and  sergeants  of 
towns, ^  collectively  known  as  ministerii  or  servientes* 

The  origin  of  the  prevots  is  difficult  to  trace ;  but  they  can 
be  found  as  far  back  as  the  time  of  Henry  I.  (1046)3  The  insti- 
tution may  have  been  suggested  by  the  episcopal  government, 
which  from  remote  times  was  wont  to  designate  by  that  title  the 
managers  of  the  estates  of  the  church.'*  Like  other  officers,  the 
prevot  held  his  place  in  fief.  He  was  named  and  could  be 
deposed  by  his  sovereign,  although  theory  and  fact,  at  the  end  of 
the  eleventh  century,  were  often  at  variance,  and  the  post  not 
infrequently  was  hereditary .^  The  judicial  power  of  the  prevot 
extended  from  simple  misdemeanors  up  to  graver  crimes;  but 
his  most  important  function  was  to  collect  the  revenue.*  Owing 
to  the  rudimentary  condition  of  local  governmental  forms,  the 
early  kings  had  been  induced  to  farm  the  revenues.^  This  com- 
plication is  the  key  to  the  apparently  incongruous  relations  of 
king  and  prevots,  which  are  presented  throughout  the  twelfth 
century.  Their  semi-feudal  tenure,  and  the  petty  tyrannies  they 
employed  in  exacting  tribute  were  inimical  to  the  interests  of  the 
crown.  Their  excesses  attained  such  proportions  that  sometimes 
whole  districts  were  abandoned  by  the  inhabitants.*  This  accounts 
for  the  exemptions  lavished  by  the  kings  upon  abbeys  and  com- 
munes.' Louis  granted  a  large  number  of  such  privileges.'"  It 
was  also  in   order   to  prevent  abuses  from  this    source  that  he 

assembly  of  Vezelai,  when  Louis  VII.  took  the  cross.     Hist,  du  Roi  Louis  Vll.y 
chap.  X,  p.  159. 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  217-8.  s  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  237. 
»  Walker,  126,  note  3.  *  Luchaire,  Inst.  Alon.,  I.,  225. 
3  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  209.  '  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  225. 

*  Luchaire,  Manuel,  539.  *  Brussel,  I.,  394. 
9  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  231-2. 

'°  Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  42,  90,  102,  118,  123,  129,  139,  165,  176,  181,182, 
198,  201,  202,  211,  227,  241,  273,  355,  365,  419,  451,  572,  606. 


56  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

planned  the  protecting  intervention  of  special  lieutenants,'  an 
institution  which  Philip  Augustus,  thanks  to  the  preparatory 
work  of  his  grandfather,  was  able  to  make  efficient,  for  the  value 
of  the  prevot  depended  upon  his  proximity  to  the  king.  "  Their 
aggressiveness  and  persistence  in  attacking  the  powers  of  the 
clergy  and  small  nobles,  as  well  as  their  exactions  from  the  non- 
noble  class,  doubtless  aided  the  process  of  consolidation  of  the 
royal  power  in  the  crown  domain."^ 

'  See  this  dissertation,  pp.  35-7. 

2  Walker,  127.  On  the  prevots,  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  214-7  '.  225- 
41.  Walker,  126-8.  The  excellent  discussion  of  Luchaire  precludes  any 
extended  treatment  in  the  present  work.  Besides  the  prevots  and  their  under- 
lings, bishops  and  abbots  were  considered  agents  of  the  king.  "  Ce  ph^nom&ne 
historique  est  aussi  curieux  qu'incontestable."  (Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  L,  209). 
They  used  their  power  to  excommunicate  in  the  interests  of  the  civil  authority. 
—Cf.  H.  F.,  XV.,  152. 


CHAPTER  V. 
FEUDAL   AND    PUBLIC    ECONOMY. 

A  monarch  of  Louis  VL's  stamp  could  not  be  content  with 
the  unsatisfactory  work  of  granting  exemptions  or  breaking  down 
the  hereditary  prevotal  caste  merely.'  He  had  genuinely  con- 
structive ideas.  A  general  economic  survey  of  the  kingdom  was 
projected  in  the  last  years  of  his  life,  but  never  completed,  owing 
to  his  failing  strength.  The  scheme  included  a  registration  of 
all  the  lands  throughout  the  realm,  and  a  rearrangement  of  the 
taxes  upon  a  basis  less  feudal,  we  may  believe,  in  its  nature.'  In 
the  spring  of  1137,  when  Louis  the  Young  was  making  ready  for 
his  pilgrimage  into  Aquitaine,  a  royal  decree  provided  for  a 
general  tax.^     Such  an  act  was  more  than  feudal  in  character.* 

'  See  the  letter  of  Louis  VL  to  Eudes,  chatelain  of  Beauvais. — Ordonn., 
XL,  177. 

» II  (Louis  le  Gros)  tente  la  grande  operation  du  cadastre  de  tout  le  terri- 
toire  appartenant  a  la  couronne.  Des  arpenteurs  et  des  mesureurs  de  terres 
sont  commissionnds  pour  relever  les  contenances  des  diffdrents  fiefs,  afin 
d'appliquer  a  chacun,  suivant  son  revenu,  une  Equitable  repartition  du  cens. 
On  voit  comment  ddja  apparaissent  ces  premieres  lueurs  d'administration 
financifere,  qui,  bientot,  de  la  commune  vont  passer  a  I'litat."  M.  le  Baron 
de  Nervo. — Les  Finances  frangaises  sous  I'ancienne  Monarchic,  la  Republique,  le 
Consulat  et  V Empire.     3  vols.     Paris,  1863,  Vol.  I.,  p.  8. 

3  Igitur  imminente  destinatae  sibi  virginis  ductione,  pater  Ludovicus  itineri 
necessaria  praeparat,  ut  et  tanta  res  cito  effectui  mancipetur,  elaborat.  Im- 
perialis  itaque  edicti  taxatione  ubique  publicata,  militum  agmina  non  parva 
properanter  conveniunt,  et  ad  ampliationem  regii  comitatus,  urbes  et  oppida 
suorum  multitudinem  habitatorum  emittunt. — Ex  Chronico  Mauriniacensi,  H.  F., 
XII.,  83. 

♦The  general  tax  imposed  by  Louis  VII.  at  Suger's  suggestion  (H.  F., 
XII.,  295)  is  commonly  regarded  as  the  first  fiscal  levy  in  223  years  not  of  a 
feudal  nature  (Clamageran,  I.,  193),  although  Vuitry  (L,  390)  holds  that  that 
also  was  a  sort  of  feudal  aid. — Consult  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  126-7,  and 
notes.     See  note  3,  p.  58.  * 

57 


58  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

Was  this  act  inspired  by  the  Domesday  Survey  of  William  the 
Conqueror  ?  There  is  nothing  to  indicate  it ;  but  the  idea  is  sug- 
gestive. Suger's  early  connection  with  ecclesiastical  administration 
in  Normandy,  and  his  intimacy  with  Henry  I.,  to  my  mind,  account 
for  this  glimmer  of  a  new  regime,  and  we  know  that  the  Domes- 
day Survey  owed  its  principle  to  a  Norman  source.' 

Such  a  scheme  as  Louis  VI.  projected,  if  he  had  lived  to  carry 
it  into  effect,  would  certainly  have  exalted  the  monarchy  by 
diminishing  the  independence  of  the  separate  feudal  governments, 
much  the  same  as  the  danegeld  in  England,  by  its  uniformity 
and  the  extent  of  its  application,  contributed  to  political  unity .'' 
As  it  was,  its  importance  cannot  escape  attention.  It  wis  a 
genuinely  creative  piece  of  statesmanship,  for  the  last  tax, 
approaching  a  general  tax  in  character,  in  France,  up  to 
the  time  of  Louis  VI.  had  been  in  924  — the  tribute  paid  to 
the  Northmen.'  It  was,  therefore  the  first  fiscal  project  in 
over  two  centuries  not  of  a  feudal  character.  In  the  succeed- 
ing interval  the  right  of  the  feudal  lord  had  been  established 
and  extended.  In  the  eleventh  century  there  was  a  time 
when  little  distinction  was  made  between  the  revenues  of  the 
crown   and   the   king's    private   purse.''      Taxation    as    a   public 

'Stubbs,  Const.  Hist,  of  England,  I.,  298. 

2Cyi  Green,  Making  of  England,  414  ;  Clamageran,  I.,  193. 

3  Vuitry,  I.,  479.  The  usual  statement  is  that  the  tax  of  924  was  the  last 
general  tax  levied  in  France,  the  inference  being  that  it  applied  to  the  entire 
realm  of  Charles  the  Simple.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  tax  was  laid  upon 
Francia,  because  of  the  revolt  of  Robert,  son  of  Robert  le  Fort  and  brother  of 
Odo  of  Paris,  and  was  not  general  at  all.  See  Marion,  De  Normanorum  Diicum 
cum  Capetianis  pacta  ruptaque  societate,  Paris,  1892,  p.  8 ;  and  Lippert,  Geschichte 
des  West frankisc hen  Reiches  unter  Konig  Rudolf,  Leipzig,  1885,  p.  38.  This 
confusion  of  France,  in  the  wider  significance,  and  Francia  has  arisen,  I  think, 
from  the  careless  use  of  the  Guizot  translation  of  Frodoard,  which  is  mis- 
leading, instead  of  the  original  Latin  version.  Francia  is  there  translated 
"France,"  and  a  careless  reading  of  the  statement  there  made  might  lead  a 
writer,  as  it  has  Clamageran  (L  193),  and  Vuitry  (I.  479),  into  error.  On  the 
use  of  the  term  Francia,  see  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest  L,  appendix  L, 
especially  p.  684. 

4 1  question  whether  "  Le  roi  vivait  des  ses  revenus  comme  un  simple 
seigneur." — Boutaric,  Hist,  de  Saint  Louis  et  TAlfonse  de  Poitiers.  Quoted  in 
Muntchretien,  introd.  li.,  note  2. 


FEUDAL  AND  PUBLIC  ECONOMY.  59 

measure  disappeared,  or  rather,  was  converted  into  the  number- 
less feudal  exactions  of  the  Middle  Ages.'  But  the  French 
monarchy  was  something  more  than  the  "  great  fief "  of  Mezeray. 
[The  droit  de  regale  was  a  prerogative  approaching  monarchial 
authority''  and  'not  circumscribed  by  the  limits  of  the  He  de 
France.  "The  church  throughout  the  most  of  northern  and 
central  France  was  the  direct  tenant  of  the  crown  in  temporal 
matters.  On  the  vacancy  of  a  bishopric  or  of  a  royal  abbey,  the 
king,  as  the  rightful  overlord  assumed  full  administration  of  such 
rights  and  possessions  of  the  see  as  were  not  distinctively  ecclesi- 
astical. .  .  .  This  right  was  an  effective  means  of  filling  the  royal 
treasury,  and  even  more  advantageous  to  the  monarchy  as  afford- 
ing political  power.  The  return  every  few  years  of  the  temporalia 
of  these  great  sees  to  the  royal  control,  enabled  the  king  to  resist 
the  encroachments  of  the  neighboring  vassals  on  the  ecclesiastical 
fiefs ;  and  for  a  time  at  least,  to  use'  the  whole  force  of  a  bishop- 
ric, in  addition  to  his  own  proper  resources,  against  any  lay  sub- 
ject whom  he  might  wish  to  curb."-^  Louis  le  Gros  was  a  careful 
guardian  of  the  crown's  regalian  privileges,V  for  political  and 
financial  reasons  alike,  although  in  the  cautious  working  out  of 
his  policy  of  intensive  development  he  made  little  effort  to  extend 
the  right.  In  Normandy,  Anjou  and  Maine  the  right  fell  to  the 
crown  with  the  forfeiture  of  those  fiefs  by  King  John ;  while  in 
Aquitaine  and  Brittany  the  right  was  enjoyed  by  the  dukes  in 
their  fiefs.  But  in  the  ecclesiastical  provinces  of  Sens  and 
Rheims,  in   Burgundy,  Champagne,  Nevers,  Auxerre,  Tonnerre 

'  Les  impots  publics  dtaient  presque  entiSrement  tomb^s  en  desuetude,  et 
les  ressources  du  tr^sor  dtaient  rdduites  aux  revenus  des  domaines  royaute,  aux 
dons  gratuits  et  i  des  services  r^els  et  personnels." — Tardif,  I.,  VIII.,  Notice 
preliminaire.      Cf.  H.  F.,  XIV.,  Introd.  xxxvii. 

2  This  is  a  mooted  point,  however.  M.  Langlois  {Le  Rigne  de Phillippe  I/I.  U 
Hardi)  contests  the  attitude  of  M.  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  124-8.  But  the 
admirable  discussion  of  M.  Pfister,  Le  Eigne  de  Robert  le  Pieiix,  Paris,  1885, 
Livre  II.,  chap,  v.,  in  my  opinion,  fully  vindicates  the  royal  character  of  the 
regale.  On  the  origin  of  the  regale  consult  Phillips,  Der  Ursprung  des  Rega- 
lienrechts  in  Frankreich,  Halle,  1870. 

3  Walker,  pp.  97-99. 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  263. 


6o  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

and  Auvergne  the  droit  de  regale  was  a  valuable  source  of  fiscal 
and  political  power  to  the  crown.* 

Owing  to  the  alienations  and  donations  of  Louis'  predecessors, 
the  royal  receipts  had  became  seriously  impaired,^  so  that  the 
kings,  weak  as  they  were,  were  sometimes  constrained  to  exercise 
the  hazardous  right  of  confiscation.^  Although  Louis  VI.  did 
not  scruple  to  wrest  money  from  the  Jews,*  he  sought  to  secure  a 
more  dignified  income  than  festival  gifts,^  and  market  dues.* 
The  ordonnances  of  his  reign  show  how  solicitous  he  was  to  pro- 
mote commerce  and  foster  agriculture.^  A  large  number  of 
charters  of  exemptions,  and  grants  of  privilege  attest  his  interest 
in  public  economy.^  Undoubtedly  Suger  was  the  inspiring  cause 
of  such  measures.  No  part  of  the  policy  of  Louis  VL  is  less  his 
own  than  that  pertaining  to  finance.  He  simply  applied  in 
extenso  what  his  minister  had  already  adopted  in  the  estates  of 
St.  Denis.'  These  were  organized  by  Suger  under  a  regime 
calculated  to  produce  the  best  results.  In  all  the  domains  of  the 
abbey,  the  prevots  and  their  subordinates  were  obliged  to  trans- 
mit exact  accounts  of  the  condition  of  affairs.'"     Suger  thus  had 

•Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  124-5. 

»  Tardif,  I.,  viii.     H.  F.,  XL,  Intr.  cxli. 

sVuitry  I.,  314.  Louis  VL  and  Louis  VIL  did  exercise  the  right  of  con- 
fiscation, but  always  with  reference  to  the  small  vassals  of  the  royal  domain 
The  confiscation  of  Normandy  by  Philip  Augustus  was  really  a  landmark  in 
feudal  law.     See  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  22,  note  2. 

^  Abelard  {de  Calamitatibus,  H.  F.,  XIV.,  292)  complains  "gravioribus 
exactionibus  monachos  ipsos  quam  tributarios  Judaeos  exagitabat"  (Louis  VI. ). 
On  the  king's  treatment  of  the  Jews,  see  Luchaire,  Manuel,  582-3 ;  Brussel, 
Bk.  II.,  ch.  39.  Philip  Augustus  enumerated  them  in  the  budget  (1206), 
according  to  Brussel,  I.,  59.     Cf.  Luchaire,  Alanuel,  583. 

5  H.  F.,  XV.,  147. 

*  Clamegeran,  I.,  206,  n. 

^  Ordonnances,  t.  XL,  p.  183. 

*  Luchaire,  ^«Ma/fj,  Nos.  58,  162,  167,  196,244,  271,  273,  277,  321,  516, 
55i»  557.  574.  586,  587,  601,  607,  608,  611,  612. 

sHuguenin,  34. 

'°  Huguenin,  33.  On  page  26,  note  2,  M.  Huguenin  gives  an  actual 
instance  —  the  roll  of  Mathieu  le  Beau,  of  the  French  Vexin  :  "Ego  Matthaeus 
Bellus,  homo  ligius  existens  S.  Dionisii  et  ejus  abbatis,  rogatu  D.  Sugerii  abbatis 
et  totius  conventus  omnes  feodos  meos  quos  de  S.  Dionisio,  in  propriam  possideo, 


FEUDAL  AND  PUBLIC  ECONOMY.  6 1 

what  really  was  a  budget,  the  enlarged  lines  of  which  afterwards, 
when  he  was  regent  under  Louis  VII.,  included  the  public 
domain.  The  interrupted  survey  of  Louis  VI.  probably  had  its 
inception  here ;  but  it  required  two  generations  for  the  new 
measures  to  commend  themselves  to  the  royal  treasury.' 
/  In  addition  to  such  measures,  Louis  VI.  coined  a  new  right 
for  the  king  —  that  of  pariages,  or  sharings.'  These  were  con- 
tracts by  which  the  king  was  associated  with  a  local  seigneur  in 
the  government  of  his  demesne,  thereby  extending  the  king's 
direct  influence  over  towns  pertaining  to  a  particular  seigneur. 
Louis  VI.  created  six  such  establishments,  in  Soisi,  Montchauvet, 
Verrines,  Boulai,  Fosse  des  Champeaux  a  Paris  and  Fontenai.^ 
In  so  doing,  as  in  the  case  of  the  bailiffs,  he  simply  anticipated 
Philip  Augustus,^  who  extended  Louis'  associative  government 
into  points  in  Burgundy,  Bourbon,  Sancerre,  Dreux,  the  bishoprics 
of  Auxerre,  Laon,  Beauvais  and  elsewhere.  The  advantage  of 
this  copartnership  was  greater  to  the  crown  than  to  the  local 
lord.  The  latter  purchased  royalorotection  by  a  partial  sacrifice 
of  independence  and  income.  /"  Naturally  they  were  usually 
resorted  to  by  ecclesiastical  establishments;  but  sharings  between 
the  king  and  lay  vassals  were  not  unknown.  Though  the  small 
holder  obtained  protection  and  often  an  increase  of  privileges, 
by  dividing  the  benefits  of  his  fief  with  the  king,  the  gain  to  the 
monarchy  was  even  more.  The  partition  was  usually  made  on  the 
basis  of  an  equal  division  of  the  income,  save  that  distinctively 
churchly  impositions  like  tithes  and  certain  portions  of  the  church 

et  quos  coeteri  mei  feodati,  computavi  nullum  praetermittens,"  etc.  (1125). — 
Cartul.  de  Saint  Denis,  t.  I.,  p.  234. 

'  Les  travaux  administratifs  de  Suger  auront  pour  premier  theatre  le 
temporel  meme  de  son  abbaye ;  mais  ils  ne  nous  offriront  pas  moins  un  sujet 
d'observations  intdressantes,  puisque  nous  les  verrons  en  suite  servir  de  module 
pour  I'administration  meme  du  royaume. — Huguenin,  32. 

^"C'est  Louis  le  Gros  qui  fonda,  sur  ce  point  comme  sur  tant  d'autres,  la 
tradition  monarchique." — Luchaire,  Annates,  Introd.,  cxcvii.  See  also 
Manuel,  384,  415. 

3  Luchaire,  Annales,  Nos.  355,  403,  457,  492,  572,  597.  On  the  character, 
importance  and  extension  of  the  pariages,  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  IL,  195- 
201. 

4  Walker,  123. 


62  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

lands  or  buildings,  were  reserved  as  the  exclusive  property  of 
religious  establishments.  The  administration  was  in  the  hands 
of  officers  chosen  jointly  by  the  monarch  and  the  sharer,  or,  if  not 
so  chosen,  bound  by  oath  to  each  of  the  contracting  parties.  It 
is  easy  to  see  how  such  an  arrangement  would  inure  to  the  profit 
of  a  strong  monarch,  allowing  him,  as  it  did,  to  have  control  of 
the  local  administration  of  the  fief  and  to  use  its  fortifications  in 
the  interest  of  the  crown.'" 
'Walker,  122-3. 


CHAPTER  VI. 
RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VI.  TO  THE  CHURCH. 

The  fact  that  the  reign  of  Louis  VL  fell  in  the  years  imme- 
diately following  the  pontificate  of  Gregory  VIL,  when  the  Clugny 
reform  movement  was  at  its  height,  suggests  the  query,  What 
was  the  attitude  of  Louis  towards  the  Church  and  the  Holy 
See  ?  The  answer  is  of  consequence  in  virtue  of  the  light  cast 
upon  the  throne  and  its  power. 

In  the  process  of  feudalization  to  which  all  institutions  suc- 
cumbed in  greater  or  less  degree,  the  church  had  not  escaped. 
The  life  all  round  it  was  feudal,  and  there  was  thus  a  gradual 
infiltration  into  the  church  of  feudalizing  elements.  The  church 
in  Gaul  had  suffered  under  the  precarious  condition  of  the  govern- 
ment following  the  division  of  the  empire.  The  decline,  too, 
was  aggravated  by  the  Norman  incursions.  The  king,  upon 
whom  hitherto  the  exercise  of  electoral  power  in  the  bishoprics 
had  depended,  was  obliged  to  divide  with  the  lords.  Feudal 
pretensions  invaded  episcopal  seats.  In  many  dioceses  count  or 
viscount  controlled  the  elections'  and  appropriated  church  reve- 
nues to  personal  uses.  Yet  althpugh  the  Carlovingians  and  Cape- 
tians  had  to  share  their  influence  in  episcopal  elections  with 
counts,  or  viscounts  they  contrived  to  retain  a  preponderant 
influence.  The  king's  ecclesiastical  sovereignty,  conveyed  in 
the  term  regale  was  never  so  divided  as  his  political  authority.^ 

^  Revue  des  Quest.  Hist.,]^.n.  1894,  p.  6.  L'Eglise  au  XI"^  sihie  dans  la 
Gascogne. 

^This  power,  in  the  case  of  the  king,  no  less  than  in  that  of  the  count, 
extended  beyond  the  role  which  ecclesiastical  theory  allowed,  according  to 
which  the  king  was  the  protector,  not  the  proprietor  of  the  church  and  its  prop- 
erty. But  in  spite  of  protest  the  king  continued  to  direct  affairs  (with  the 
qualifications  mentioned  on  pp.  59-60.)  Rev.  des  Qtiest.  Hist.,  Jan.  1894,  p.  296. 
Review  of  Imbart  de  la  Tour's  "  Les  Elections  episcopales  dans  lEglise  de  France 
63 


64  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

Some  remnants  of  supremacy  remained  in  localities  not  forming 
a  portion  of  the  royal  domain,  which  were  used  to  the  advantage 
of  the  central  power.' (_^e  have  seen  before  this,  what  financial 
advantages  regalian  rights  afforded  the  crown ;  the  political 
advantage  was  no  less  effective.  "The  right  of  regalia  carried 
with  it  the  privilege  of  appointing  to  the  benefices  ordinarily  in 
the  gift  of  the  bishop ;  thus  allowing  the  king  to  fill  these  terri- 
tories, often  in  the  heart  of  the  lay  fiefs,  with  his  partisans."' 
This  extended  also  to  the  choice  of  the  heads  of  numerous  abbeys, 
which  the  interest  of  protection  from  the  local  nobles  bound  to  the 
crown,  and  so  emphasized  the  power  of  the  crown  in  lay  lands.^ 
The  king  thus  had  a  measure  of  power  transcending  his  ordinary 
authority.  In  the  time  of  Louis  le  Gros  the  circle  of  regalian 
influence  was  confined  to  northern  and  central  France"-^  the  epis- 
copate of  Rheims,  the  province  of  Sens,  Bourges,  Champagne, 
Bourgogne,  Nivernais,  including  Auxerre  and  Tonnerre,  and 
Auvergne.  In  Normandy,  in  fiefs  of  the  house  of  Anjou,  in 
Flanders,  Brittany,  Toulouse,  and  the  feudal  group  of  the  south, 
regalian  rights  fell  to  the  crown"  only  by  conquest  or  other  annexa- 

du  IX^  ail  XII^  siicles".  The  right,  however,  was  subject  to  important  varia- 
tions. Before  the  Gregorian  reform  it  was  entire,  wherever  held.  From  that 
time  it  became  more  qualified,  but  through  the  partial  failure  of  the  reform,  it  was 
never  seriously  impaired.  (See  Luchaire,  Manuel,  §  276.)  The  letter  of  Suger, 
while  regent  (Duchesne,  IV.,  498),  to  the  church  of  Chartres,  is  particularly 
clear  in  defining  the  regale  :  Sugerius  Dei  gratia  B,  Dionysii  abbas,  Capitulo 
Carnotensi,  Roberto  scilicet  decano,  et  aliis,  salutem  et  dilectionem.  Quod 
unanimiteret  communipace  pontificem  vobis  domnum  Gostenum  archidiaconum 

elegistis,  valde  nobis  placet Nos  autem,  quantum  ex  parte  domini  regis 

cujus  vices  agimus,  facere  habemus,  huic  electioni  libenter  assensum  praebemus. 
De  regalibus  vero,  sicut  in  curia  Dominorum  Regum  Francorum  mos  antiquus 
fuisse  dinoscitur,  cum  episcopus  consecratus  et  in  palatinum  ex  more  canonico 
fuerit  introductus,  tunc  reddentur  omnia.  Hie  est  enim  redditionis  ordo  et 
consuetudo,  ut,  sicut  diximus,  in  palatio  statutus,  regi  et  regno  fidelitatem  facial, 
et  sic,  demum  regalia  recipiat. 

» Clamageran,  I.,  276.     Cf.  H.  F.,  XIV.,  liii. 

•Walker,  99. 

3  For  Louis  VI. 's  management  of  the  royal  abbeys  see  Luchaire,  Annales, 
Introd.,  pp.  cliv-vi. 

*Ibid.,  cviii-cxi.     Brussel,  I.,  295-309. 

Louis  VI.  allowed  the  privilege  of  election  to  remain  to  the  bishoprics  and 


RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VI.  TO  THE  CHURCH.  65 

tions.  Louis  was  jealous  of  the  regalia'  and  kept  a  watchful  eye 
upon  appointments  in  bishopric  or  abbey .^  In  respect  of  this 
policy,  Louis  VI.  predetermined  the  larger  conduct  of  Philip 
Augustus.3  Such  rights,  permeating  where  else  the  king  could 
not  enter,  gave  a  solidity  to  the  royal  power  not  afforded  in 
any  other  way. 
[  It  was  inevitable  where  Church  and  State  were  so  inti-  K^ 
mately  connected,  that  there  should  be  conflict  between  the 
ecclesiastical  and  secular  powers ;  but  in  spite  of  the  anathemas 
of  the  church,  the  regale  triumphed.'*  In  case  of  such  union,  the 
truest  political  science  demanded  that  the  state  be  paramount.^ 
The  idea  of  the  state,  as  the  idea  of  the  nation,  were  both  nascent 

abbeys  in  Aquitaine  and  Poitiers.  This  was  just  before  his  death.  The  act 
sets  forth  in  clear  style  the  duties  of  royal  power  to  the  church  :  Regise  majes- 
tatis  est,  ecclesiarum  quieti  pia  soUicitudine  providere  ;  et  ex  officio  susceptse  a 
Domino  pietatis  earum  libertatem  tueri,  et  ab  hostium  seu  malignantium  incursi- 
bus  defensare.  Ea  propter  petitionibus  vestris,  communicato  praesente  episco- 
porum  abbatuum  et  procerum  nostrorum  consilio,  assentienti  Ludovico  filio 
nostro  jam  in  regem  sublimato,  duximus  annuemdum,  et  in  sede  Burdegalensi 
et  in  praenominatis  episcopalibus  sedibus,  abbatiisque  ejusdem  provinciae  quae, 
defuncto  illustri  Aquitanorum  duce  et  comite  Pictavis  Guillelmo,  per  filiam 
ipsius  Alienordim  jam  dicto  filio  nostro  Ludovico  forte  matrimonii  cedit,  in 
episcoporum  et  abbatuum  suorum  electionibus  canonicam  omnino  concedimus 
libertatem  absque  homini,  juvamenti  seu  fidei  per  manum  datae,  obligatione. 
....  Hoc  quoque  adjicientes,  ut  omnes  ecclesiae  infra  denominatam  provin- 
ciam  constitutae,  praedia,  possessiones  ad  ipsas  jure  pertinentia,  secundum 
privilegia  et  justitias  et  bonas  consuetudines  suas,  habeant  et  possideant  illibita. 
quin  ecclesiis  ipsis  universis  et  earum  ministris,  cum  possessionibus  suis,  can- 
onicam in  omnibus  concedimus  libertatem. — Brussel,  I.,  286. 

' "  In  dem  hohen  Masse,  wie  Ludwig  dem  Klerus  gegeniiber  seine  Pflichten 
als  Schutzherr  wahrnahm  und  demselben  zahlreiche  Beweise  der  Gunst  gab, 
wahrte  er  streng  die  ihm  zustehenden  kirchlichen  Rechte,  besonders  die  sich 
auf  die  Regalien,  sowie  auf  Wahl  und  Bestatigung  der  Bischofe  und  Abte 
beziehenden."  —  Hirsch,  Studien  zur  Geschichte  Konig  Ludwigs  VII.,  p.  14. 

2  See  the  cases,  Luchaire,  Annates,  Introd.,  clxix-clxx. 

3  Luchaire,  Ibid.,  Introd.  p.  clvi. 
♦Clamageran,  I.,  290. 

5 "  The  State  is  the  public  power,  offensive  and  defensive,  both  at  home 
and  abroad.  In  the  life  of  the  State  and  of  states,  authority  is  thus  the  essen- 
tial thing Only  the  State  has  the  duty  or  the  right  to  be  the  authority  in 

this  sense.     Wherever  justice,  property,  society,  wherever  even  the  church,  the 


66  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

potentialities  in  France  in  the  twelfth  century,  but  the  royal  atti- 
tude of  Louis  was  a  valuable  preparative  to  that  discovery.  When 
pontifical  authority  did  not  invade  the  palace,  or  oppose  the  ends 
of  government,  he  was  a  ready  supporter  of  Rome;'  but  he 
believed  that  France's  interests  were  paramount.  7 

This  is  made  manifest  in  an  occurrence  of  the  year  1 1 14.  The 
diocese  of  Noyon  was  situated  in  that  penumbral  region  between 
France  and  the  empire.  It  was  French  in  sentiment,  while  Tournai, 
in  the  same  ecclesiastical  department,  inclined  towards  Germany. 
In  1 1 14,  on  the  death  of  the  bishop,  the  two  sections,  each 
with  its  own  candidate,  struggled  for  the  mastery.  Pascal  II.  was 
favorable  to  a  division  of  the  diocese  ;  but  such  a  separation  would 
deliver  to  Flanders  and  the  county  of  Hainaut,  and,  perhaps, 
to  the  Empire,  an  area  hitherto  subject  to  the  regalian  juris- 
diction of  the  king  of  France.  Pascal  went  so  far  as  to  give 
to  Tournai  a  special  bishop,  but  Calixtus  II.,  in  1121,  owing  to  the 
strenuous  efforts  of  Louis,  reunited  Tournai  and  Noyon.*  The 
same  question,  in  reverse  manner,  occurred  again  in  11 24  when 
the  pope  sougKt  to  unite  the  bishophic  of  Arras  to  that  of  Cam- 
brai.  Again  Louis  VI.  interposed  and  forced  the  pope  to  main- 
tain Arras  in  his  exclusive  control.  The  union,  if  consummated, 
would  have  reduced  the  territory  penetrated  by  the  regale,  and 
possible  also  have  been  a  source  of  conflict  with  the  Empire.^ 
Motives  of  expediency  constrained  each  party  not  to  go  to 
extremes.  Necessity  constrained  Louis  not  to  be  too  aggressive, 
and  without  doubt  the  support  of  the  crown  of  France,  indirect 
as  it  was,  was  of  aid  to  the  pope  in  his  protracted  struggle 
people,  or  the  community,  come  into  the  position  of  authority,  the  nature  of  the 
State  is  either  not  yet  discovered  or  lost  in  degeneracy." — Droysen,  Principles 
of  History  (Andrews'  translation),  p.  42. 

'In  II 12  Louis  VI.  writes  to  the  pope  :  Ego  Ludovicus  ....  praemuni- 
tus,  dignum  ac  valde  necessarium  duximus,  ut  quando  pontificalis  auctoritas  verbi 
gratia  non  praevalet,  nostra  potentia  subministret ;  et  quod  perfidorum  violentia 
Deo  militantibus  subtrahitur  nostre  majestatis  formidine  ad  ultimum  reformetur. 
— Mabillon,  642. 

»  See  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  172,  and  Introd.  cxxv.-cxxix.  The  confirma- 
tion of  Calixtus  is  in  Robert's  Bullaire,  No.  263.  Eugenius  III.  later  (1146) 
divided  the  diocese.     (Luchaire,  Manuel,  40,  note.) 

3  On  these  two  cases,  see  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.  263-4  and  notes. 


RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VL  TO  THE  CHURCH.  67 

with  the  empire/     The  pope  dared  not  go  to  extremes  lest  the 
conflict  between  the  papacy  and  the  empire  be  repeated  in  Gaul.* 

The  history  of  royal  justice  under  Louis  VI. ,  so  far  as  the  rela- 
tions of  the  court  of  the  king  to  ecclesiastical  matters  is  con- 
cerned, is  one  of  great  obscurity.  There  is  no  reason  to  believe, 
however,  that  in  asserting  the  competence  of  his  court  over 
things  pertaining  to  the  church  he  abated  his  claims.3  Louis 
adhered  to  — even  strengthened  —  whatever  legal  or  customary 

'Aside  from  the  dynastic  tie  which  bound  the  emperor  to  the  foe  of  the 
French  king,  between  the  two  powers  east  and  west  of  the  Rhine,  there  could 
not  be  any  pacific  feeling.  The  French  king  enjoyed  in  comparative  security 
the  right  for  which  the  emperor  was  struggling  and  which  he  was  obliged 
partially  to  surrender  by  the  Concordat  of  Worms  (1122).  This  jealousy  was 
aggravated,  too,  because  French  influence  had  been  exerted  in  favor  of  the 
pope,  the  emperor's  mortal  enemy,  although  in  the  nature  of  things  Louis  VI. 
could  derive  no  advantage  from  his  conduct,  even  though  CalixtusII.  were  his 
uncle.  "Das  Schisma  welches  Heinrich  vor  drei  Jahren  erneuert  hatte,  war  ein 
trauriger  Anachronismus  gewasen,  dessen  Wirkungen  er  selbst  libel  genug 
empfand ;  das  Abendland  ertrug  keinen  Papst  mehr,  der  sich  lediglich  auf  die 
Macht  des  Kaisers  stutzte.  Darauf  beruhte  zuletzt  der  vollstandige  Sieg  des 
Calixt,  eine  wie  bedeutende  Hulfe  ihm  auch  sein  koniglicher  Neffe  in  Frank- 
reich'  gewahrt  hatte.  Es  lag  nur  in  der  Natur  der  Dinge  dass  sich  Konig 
Ludwig  fiir  die  geleisteten  Dienste  schlecht  belohnt  glaubte,  als  der  Pabst  nicht 
mehr  in  alle  seine  Forderungen  willigte,  und  dass  dieser  dagegen  sich  solchen 
Undank  wenig  zu  Hertzen  nahm.  Er  wollte  so  wenig  ein  Vassall  Frankreichs, 
wie  des  deutchen  Kaisers,  sondern  das  freie  Oberhaupt  der  Kirche  sein — und 
war  es." — Giesebrecht,  III.,  930. 

'Ives  of  Chartres  writes  (11 13)  :  Quod  ergo  hactenus  cum  pace  et  utili- 
tate  ecclesiae  observatum  est,  humiliter  petimus  ut  de  coetero  observatur,  et 
regni  Francorum  pax  et  summi  sacerdotii  nulla  subreptione  dissolvatur.  Quod 
idcirco  praelibamus  quia  audivimus  clericos  Tornacenses  ad  apostolicam  sedem 
venisse,  petituro&ut  apostolica  proeceptione  proprium  possint  habere  episcopum, 
et  Noviomensis  ecclesiae  frustrare  privilegium.  Quod  ne  fiat  sicut  filii  et  fideles 
rogamus  et  consulimus ;  ....  ne  hac  occasione  schisma  quod  est  in  Gertnanico 
regno  adversus  sedem  apostolicam  in  Galliarum  regno  suscitetis  ....  Tornacen- 
sibus  non  esse  dandum  proprium  episcopum,  ne  in  ofiEen  sam  regis  Francorum 
incurrat.— H.  F.,  XV.,  160. 

3  The  principle  of  the  superiority  of  the  justice  of  the  state  over  that  of  the 
church  is  clearly  set  forth  in  the  act  of  partition  of  the  banlietie  between  Louis 
VI.  and  the  bishop  of  Paris  (1112-1116).  See  Luchaire,  Annates,  Introd. 
clviii.,  and  No.  218  ;  Tardif,  No.  345  ;  Gudrard,  Cartul.  de  Notre-Dame  de  Paris, 
I.,  252. 


68  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

prerogatives  attended  the  king's  office.  The  church,  while  quite 
willing  in  case  of  need  to  be  plaintiff  in  the  royal  court,  had  before 
Louis'  time  assumed,  with  admirable  inconsistency,  to  try  in  its 
own  courts  all  cases  wherein  an  ecclesiastic  was  the  defendant.' 
This  invasion  of  the  competence  of  the  king's  court  by  the 
hierarchy,  while  never  reaching  the  point  attained  by  the  seign- 
eurial  power,'  was  quite  general  in  the  later  eleventh  century — 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  times  of  the  magnificent  papal  pretensions 
of  Gregory  VII.  In  1093  Ives  of  Chartres,  the  great  advocate  of 
the  Clugny  reform,  replied  to  a  summons  of  the  royal  court, — 
"/'«  ecclesia,si  ecclesiastica  sunt  negotia;  vel  in  curia,  si  sunt  curi- 
a//«,"— language  guarded  enough  for  any  reservation  he  might 
choose  to  make.^  Filled  with  cloud-capped  ideas  of  the  emi- 
nence of  the  church,  the  bishop  of  Chartres  sought  to  make  the 
prevots  of  his  diocese'*  address  themselves  to  Rome  instead  of 
appealing,  as  they  naturally  did,  to  the  justice  of  the  king.^  But 
he  was  to  live  to  learn  that  the  little  finger  of  Louis  VI.  was  as 
thick  as  his  father's  thigh.  He  could  not  dispose  of  a  sum- 
mons of  Louis  VI.  by  a  stroke  of  the  pen.  In  11 14  a  chev- 
alier of  Beauvais  was  killed,  through  the  instigation  of  a  canon. 
The  cathedral  chapter  at  once  took  the  matter  in  hand,  and 
denied  the  cognizance  of  the  royal  tribunal,  although  the 
action  was  criminal,  on  the  ground  that  the  chapter  alone  was 
competent  to  try  its  members.  In  this  the  canons  were  sus- 
tained by  Ives,   the  bishop  of  Chartres,  who  at  the  same  time 

'  Luchaire,  Manuel,  557. 

*  Pardessus,  4,  5. 

3  See  Luchaire,  hist.  Mon.,  I.,  295.  There  are  two  monographs  pertaining 
to  this  subject :  Sieber,  Bischof  Ivo  von  Chartres  und  seine  Stellung  zu  den  kir- 
chenpolitischen  Fragen  seine  Zeit;  Theil,  Die  politische  Thdtigkeit  des  Abtes 
Bernhard  von  Clairvaux. 

*• "  Accusavit  (Ivo)  enim  nos  "  writes  one  of  the  prevots,  "  dicens  quod  regem 
adissemus,  regem  in  rebus  ecclesiae  nostrae  manum  mittere  fecissemus.  Itaque 
orasse  ad  vestrum  auxilium  et  consilium  confugisse  nunc  nobis  nocet.  Nunc 
enim  nobis  jus  et  negavit,  et  negat,  et  Romam  invito  nos  trahit  et  invitat." — 
Bibl.  de  VEcole  des  Chartes,  1855  ;  L.  Merlet,  Lettres  de  Ivo  de  Chartres,  pp.  449- 
450.     Quoted  in  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I.,  295,  note  2. 

5  The  lesser  clergy  were  far  more  in  consonance  with  the  policy  of  the 
crown  than  high  prelates. 


RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VI.  TO  THE  CHURCH.  69 

indulged  in  the  melancholy  reflection  that  if  the  chapter 
renounced  its  competence,  it  violated  the  canon  law;  while  if  it 
refused,  it  incurred  the  wrath  of  the  king  (si  audientiam  regalis 
curiae  respuitis,  regem  offenditis).  Louis  VI.  had  the  murderer 
arrested  ;  the  clerical  party  replied  by  laying  Beauvais  under 
interdict.'  We  are  ignorant  of  the  issue  of  the  struggle ;  the 
canon  may  have  escaped  severe  punishment,  owing  to  the  protrac- 
tion of  the  struggle ; '  or  the  chapter  may  have  purchased  per- 
mission to  try  the  cause,  as  in  the  case  of  Gaudri,  the  bishop  of 
Laon.3  In  the  light  of  Louis'  policy,  however,  it  is  hard  to 
believe  that  the  crown  retreated  from  its  position. 

The  period  between  11 26  and  1135  is  signalized  by  the 
further  struggle  of  Louis  with  the  clergy  of  reform.  Louis 
VI.  had  no  intention  of  abandoning  to  papal  control  a  pre- 
rogative so  valuable  as  that  of  the  regale.  Rome  and  the 
reforming  party  had  triumphed  at  Rheims  in  1106,*  but  the 
respagsibility  of  government  was  then  not  all  Louis'  own.  As 
king!  Louis  was  determined  to  control  the  regale  in  spite  of  the 
protests  of  Rome.  Aside  from  the  advantage  to  the  crown  from 
the  right  of  investiture  in  lay  fiefs,  the  crown  had  been  accustomed 
to  use  the  church  in  other  capacities.  Hence  he  regarded  the  new- 
propaganda  as  inimical  to  the  interests  of  monarchy.  The  vice  of 
feudalism  was  its  separativeness.  Investiture  was  the  only 
means  of  contact  which  the  king  had  with  many  fiefsj   Louis  was 

'  See  H.  F.,  XV.,  168-70;  Letters  of  Ives  of  Chartres,  Nos,  137,  263,  264; 
Guibert  de  Nogent,  I.,  chap,  xvii.;  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  174;  Inst.  Mon.,  I., 
297-8;  Guizot,  Civilization  in  France,  Course  IV.,  Lect.  4;  Revue  Hist.  (1890), 
Vol.  XLII.,  p.  87  ;  Langlois,  Les  Origines  du  Parlement  de  Paris.. 

'  This  is  the  hypothesis  of  M.  Guizot. 

3  In  1 1 10  Gerard  de  Quierzi  was  assassinated  by  accomplices  of  Gaudri, 
bishop  of  Laon,  then  at  Rome.*  The  royal  prevot  in  the  city  at  once  called 
upon  the  bourgeois,  burned  the  houses  of  the  conspirators,  and  drove  them  out 
of  the  city.  The  king  knowing  that  the  bishop  was  the  instigator  of  the  murder,  con- 
fiscated his  property  and  forbade  him  his  episcopal  duties.  Gaudri,  meanwhile, 
had  returned  from  Rome  with  letters  of  absolution  from  the  pope.  Louis,  however, 
persisted  in  his  attitude,  and  Gaudri  was  only  allowed  to  assume  his  place  on 
payment  of  money. — Annates,  No.  93;  H.  F.,  XII.,  246-9.     Cf.  No.  518. 

<  Luchaire,  Annates,  clvi.  ff.;  Imbart  de  la  Tour,  Les  Elections  episcopates, 
pp.  356-7- 


7°  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

not  an  enemy  of  reform.  His  attitude  in  this  matter  has  been 
misunderstood.  He  has  been  accused  of  deliberate  persecution 
of  the  church ; '  whereas  his  sole  purpose  was  to  establish  the 
precedence  of  the  state  in  matters  pertaining  to  church  and  state.* 
Effective  reform  had  to  proceed  from  the  government ;  this  Louis 
VI.  saw;  he  could  not  abandon  the  cardinal  principles  of  his  pol- 
icy.3  Fortunately  Suger,  as  Stephen  de  Garland  before  him,  was 
wise  enough  to  see  the  wisdom  of  this  course.  Although  he 
refused  to  wear  a  secular  title,  Suger  nevertheless  preserved  in 
his  spiritual  discipline  an  active  participation  in  temporal  affairs. 
He  was  nodess  a  man  of  the  church  for  that  he  had  a  vivid  inter- 
est in  things  of  the  world;  he  saw  with  rare  insight  the  necessity 
of  cooperation  between  the  two  greatest  forces  of  the  time. 

The  moral  situation  between  the  king  and  the  party  of  reform 
was  sometimes  serious.*  Against  the  monarchy  was  the  clergy  of 
the  Ile-de-France,  with  the  order  of  Citeaux,  and  the  foremost 
advocate  of  church  authority  in  Europe,  Bernard  of  Clairvaux. 

'  Combes,  22.     St.  Bernard  called  him  "  a  second  Herod." — H.  Y.,  XV.,  548. 

«  Louis  VI.  proved  the  sincerity  of  his  intentions  by  taking  Clugny  under 
special  protection. — Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  276. 

3  Louis  le  Gros  in  granting  a  charter  to  the  church  of  St.  Cornelius,  at 
Compiegne,  felt  it  necessary  to  accompany  the  privileges  bestowed  with  a 
restriction  worded  as  though  it  were  a  novelty,  to  the  effect  that  those  in  holy 
orders,  connected  with  the  foundation,  should  have  no  wives  —  a  condition 
which  shows  how  little  confidence  existed  in  the  mind  of  the  sagacious  prince 
as  to  the  efficacy  of  the  canons  so  pretentiously  promulgated.  "  Ut  clerici  ejusdem 
ecclesiae  sicut  usque  modo  vixerunt  permaneant ;  hoc  tamen  praecipimus  ut 
presbyteri,  diaconi,subdiaconi,  nulla  tenusdeinceps  uxores  concubinas  habeant ; 
cseteri  vero  cujuscumque  ordinis  clerici  propter  fornicationem,  licentiam  habeant 
ducendi  uxores." — DuCange,  Concubina.  Cited  in  Lea,  Hist.  Sacerdotal  Cel- 
ibacy, p.  270.  "  The  correspondence  of  Ives  of  Chartres  is  a  sufficient  confes- 
sion of  the  utter  futility  of  the  ceaseless  exertions  which  for  half  a  century  the 
church  had  been  making  to  enforce  her  discipline."  Lea,  p.  263.  See  Letters, 
Nos.  200,  218,  277. 

^See  the  conflict  of  Louis  VI.  with  the  archbishop  of  Sens  (Luchaire, 
Annales,  No.  448);  with  the  bishop  of  Paris  {Ibid.,  Nos.  424,  427-8, 439,  465);  with 
Hildebert  of  Tours  {Ibid.,  Nos.  367,  400,  426,  432,  460,  473).  On  the  contest 
over  investitures,  with  Pascal  II.  consult  Acad,  des  Inscript.,  VI.,  565  {1819).  A 
detailed  account  oi  Louis  VI. 's  relations  with  the  episcopate  is  in  Luchaire, 
Annales,  Introd.,  pp.  cliii-clxxviii. 


c 


RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VI.  TO  THE  CHURCH.  71 

The  terrible  struggle  between  the  king  and  the  bishop  of  Paris 
ended  in  the  capitulation  of  the  partisans  of  the  Clugny  propa- 
ganda, while  that  with  Hildebert  of  Tours  ended  in  the  complete 
surrender  of  Hildebert.  When  it  was  at  last  understood  that  the 
royal  power  would  brook  no  reduction  of  its  authority,  conveyed 
either  in  law  or  precedent,  church  and  state  profited  alike. 
Louis  VI. 's  wise  policy  of  moderation  when  contrasted  with  the 
drastic  policy  of  Henry  HI.  in  Germany,^  spared  France  the  con- 
flict which  sundered  the  Empire.  The  question  of  investiture  — 
the  cardinal  principle  of  the  Clugny  reform  —  never  reached  the 
stupendous  proportions  in  France  that  it  attained  in  Germany 
and  Italy,  or  even  in  EnglandrT 

The  silence  of  the  French  chronicles  regarding  the  matter 
is  significant.  Neither  in  charters,  nor  in  pontifical  letters, 
nor  in  the  writers  of  the  period,  is  there  allusion  to  any 
agreement  concluded  between  the  monarchy  and  the  papacy, 
like  the  Concordat  of  Worms  (1122)  in  Germany,  or  the  settle- 
ment made  between  the  English  king  and  the  pope  in  1107. 
The  council  of  Rheims  (October  20,  11 19)  under  Calixtus  11.  was 
the  last  synod  held  in  France  in  which  the  question  of  investi- 
ture was  agitated.'  Calixtus  was  a  violent  fanatic  and  intended 
to  promulgate  a  general  interdict,  but  thfi,  temper  of  the 
assembly  obliged  him  to  modify  the  decree. ^L^It  is  probable  that 
from  this  time  forth  the  kings  ceased  gradually  to  give  investi- 
ture by  ring  and  crosier  before  consecration,  without  submitting 
to  this  concession  by  official  declaration  or  public  act.  The 
truth  is  that  from  the  reign  of  Louis  VI.  it  can  be  said  that  the 
crown  ceased  to  insist  on  its  direct  right  of  nomination  allowing 
a  measure  of  local  liberty  in  the  election  of  bishops."  The  king 
trusted  the  Galilean  clergy,  and  on  the  whole  thdx  sentiments  of 
loyalty  and  independence  warranted  that  trust.^    y* 

'  See  this  dissertation,  introd.,  p.  8. 

2  On  this  council  consult  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest,  V.  189-91,  or  Robert 
Calixte  II.,  ch.  vi. 

3lmbart  de  la  Tour. — Les  Elections^  ipiscopales,  p.  398  and  note  I. 

'■Ibid.,  p.  399. 

SThus  in  1137  Louis  granted  liberty  of  episcopal  elections  to  the  churches 


72  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

That  the  reconciliation  between  the  king  and  the  church  party 
was  real  and  complete,'  an  event  of  the  year  1130  furnishes 
proof.  After  the  death  of  Honorius  II.  the  Christian  world 
was  divided  in  the  question  whether  the  claims  of  Innocent  II. 
or  those  of  Anacletus  should  have  preferment.  Louis  VI. 
convened  a  council  at  Etampes.  Among  the  prelates  came 
St.  Bernard  and  Hildebert  the  penitent  archbishop  of  Tours. 
The  king  appealed  to  Bernard  to  decide,  for  he  had  but  to 
open  his  mouth  and  the  Spirit  gave  him  utterance.^  His 
decision  given  in  favor  of  Innocent  was  considered  the  judgment 
of  God.  In  the  nature  of  things,  Louis  secured  no  direct  results 
at  this  time.  Whatever  important  aid  the  king  of  France  had 
given  Innocent,  the  pope  was  willing  to  be  a  vassal  of  the 
king  of  France  as  little  as  of  the  emperor.  He  wanted  to  be 
the  free  head  of  the  church,  and  he  was,  but  the  indirect  effect 
to  France,  in  the  prestige  given  the  monarchy,  in  the  eyes  of 
Europe,  was  not  inconsiderable,  Germany  and  England  fol- 
lowed France  and  also  recognized  Innocent  II.  as  pope. 

Meanwhile  the  king  and  his  minister  had  begun  the  work 
of  reforming  the  monasteries.  Corruption  and  debauchery 
ruled,  even    in    St.  Denis,^  and    also    ill    its    priory   of   Argen- 

of  Aquitaine,  but  the  privilege  was  not  accorded  at  the  demand  of  the  pope  nor 
was  it  owing  even  to  the  initiative  of  local  seigneurs.    Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  581. 

'  Stephen,  the  bishop  of  Paris,  attended  Louis  VI.,  in  his  last  hours. — 
Suger,  129. 

*"Aperuit  os  suum  et  Spiritus  Sanctus  implevit  illud." — Ex  vita  sancti 
Bernardt,  H.F.,  XIV.,  364.  On  this  schism  see  Suger,  1 1 8 ;  Chron.  Maurin, 
H.  F.,  XII.,  79;  Ex  actis  sanctorum  et  illustrium  virorum  gestis,  H.  F.,  XIV., 
256.     Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  460,  has  a  valuable  note. 

sAntiqua  religio  non  parum  in  eodem  monasterio  refriguerat,  exteriores 
quoque  possessiones  paulatim  diminutae  erant,  sed  et  nonnulla  sinistrae  famae 
de  eisdem  virginibus  dicebantur.  Unde  multum  contristatus  idem  pontifex 
....  consilio  et  auctoritate  domini  Papae  Innocentii,  dominique  Renaldi 
Remorum  archie piscopi,  Ludovici  quoque  regis  Francorum,  ad  quern  eadem 
ecclesiae  proprie  pertinere  dicebatur,  omnes  pariter  illas  sanctimoniales  ex  ilia 
ejecit. — H.  F.,  XIV.,  348,  Gesta  Bartholomaei  Laudunensis  episcopi.  Cf.  Letter 
of  Louis  VI.  Gall.  Christ.  IX.,  col.  192. 

In  ecclesia  sancti  Dionysii,  Parisiensis  diocesis,  reformatur  religio  per 
industriam  et  bonum  propositum  Sugerii,  ejusdem  loci  abbatis.  Nam  per  negli- 


RELATION  OF  LOUIS  VI   TO  THE  CHURCH.  73 

teuil.'  Suger  effectively  renovated  many  places/  not  only  reform- 
ing the  moral  life  of  the  monks,  but  their  temporal  condition  as 
well.  In  the  priories  of  St.  Denis  he  revised  the  method  of  govern- 
ment, requiring  ecclesiastical  prevots  to  have  a  knowledge  of  the 
law,  a  qualification  hitherto  unheard  of.  He  induced  the  king 
to  relieve  the  inhabitants  of  the  ville  of  St.  Denis  of  the  right  of 
mortmain ;  he  redeemed  the  octrois,  repurchased  rights  which 
had  become  alienated  or  usurped,  and  by  planting  vineyards  and 
orchards,  advanced  the  temporal  interests  of  the  people.3  In 
the  light  of  the  numerous  concessions  made  by  Louis  VI.  to 
abbeys  and  churches,''  or  the  confirmation  of  donations  or 
exemptions  made  by  former  kings,^  or  by  local  seigneurs,*  it 
is  difficult  to  think  of  him  otherwise  than  as  a  patron  of  the 
church.  But  Louis  VI.  was  not  prompted  by  humanitarian 
motives,  in  doing  as  he  did,  so  much  as  by  material  results 
derived  by  the  crown  from  the  increased  worth  of  his  people, 
else  he  would  Jiave  abolished  the  barbarous  right  of  spoil,'  by 

gentiam  abbatuum  et  quorumdam  illius  ecclesiae  monachorum  regularis  institute, 
ita  ab  eodem  loco  abjecta  erat,  quod,  vix  speciem  vel  habitum  religionis  prae- 
tendebant  monachis." — Guil.  de  Nangis,  p.  13.     {Societe  de  IHistoire  de  France^ 

'  Suger,  100.  QLuvres  de  Suger  {Administration  Abbatiale),  Edition  of  Lecoy 
de  la  Marche,  160-I,  and  Eclaircissements,  441. 

^  Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  410,  413,  431,  433,  519,  565.  Sugar's  own  account 
of  the  reform  of  St.  Denis  is  in  Suger,  95-99.  In.  Chron.  Maurin,  H.  F.,  XII., 
78  there  is  a  good  description  of  an  investigation,  showing  the  hostility  of  the 
monks. 

sHuguenin,  27-30.  The  charter  of  Louis  VI.  is  in  Duchesne,  IV.,  548, 
and  in  translation  in  Combes,  Pieces  Justificatives,  No.  4,  p.  310. 

*  Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  52,  58,  65,  66,  69,  86,  98,100,  107,  141,151, 163, 
171,  173,  193,  194,  196,  204,  206,  224,  225,  234,  241,  250,  271,  274,  278,  284,  286, 
289, 293,  329,  342,  354,  361,  363,  397,  419,  442, 453, 464,  477,  479,  482, 483,  495, 
498,  503,  517,  522,  535,  537,  538,  539,  541,  543,  550,  574,  591,  592,  593,  596,  606, 
615,  616,  619-22,  631,  634,  636. 

5  Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  140,  144,  148,  195,  292,  294,  302,  323,  324,  326, 
332,  350,  370,  501,  504,  507,  513,  532,  534,  536,  557,  633- 

^Ibid.,  Nos.  loi,  104,  112,  115,  126,  232,  235  251,  283,  304,  306,319,320, 
329,  346,  347,  352,  354,  357,  364,  366,  368,  436,  447,  457,  458,  485,  5i4,  5i5,  528, 
548,  561,  599,  604,  635,  637,  638. 

7H.  F.,  XV.,  341.  Luchaire,  Manuel,  49.  For  the  abolition  of  this  abuse 
by  Louis  VII.,  see  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  66-7. 


74  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

which  the  king  took  to  himself  the  goods  and  revenues  of  a 
deceased  prelate.  .Motives  of  expediency  to  the  king  were  more 
urgent  than  graces  of  charity  were  attractive.' 

'  This  is  far  from  asserting,  however,  that  Louis  VI.  was  deficient  in  kindness 
of  heart.  On  the  contrary  he  was  beloved  by  his  friends  and  the  common  folk. 
Suger's  account  shows  that  the  king  was  genuinely  loved  by  his  people: — Cum 
autem  paulatim  ad  incolumitatem  respiraret,  quo  potuit  vehiculo  prope  Milidu- 
num  ad  fluvium  Sequane,  occurentibus  et  concurrentibus  per  viam  ei  obviam  et 
Deo  personam  ejus  commendantibus  a  castellis  et  vicis  et  relictis  aratris  devotis- 
simis  populis  quibus  pacem  conservaverat,  etc.     Suger,  p.  127. 


CHAPTER    VII. 

KING   AND    COMMUNES.    ROYALTY    AND    THE    POPULAR 
CLASSES, 

From  the  time  of  Louis  VI.  the  emancipation  of  the  serf  ceases 
to  be  a  religious  sentiment  of  sporadic  growth,  and  becomes  a 
conscious  policy  of  the  crown'  that  contributed  to  the  increase  of 
the  royal  power  of  the  crown,  in  weakening  feudal  customs  and 
in  the  consequent  economic  and  social  elevation  of  the  people. 
The  direct  purpose  of  Louis,  however,  was  not  so  much  to 
elevate  the  serf  as  to  humble  the  barons.  Owing  to  Suger's 
careful  management,  to  the  king  power  was  more  to  be 
desired  than  riches.  Yet  Louis  was  far  from  displaying  indiffer- 
ence to  the  acquisition  of  wealth.  His  cupidity  was  notorious. 
Nothing  can  equal  the  cynicism  which  he  displayed  in  the  sale 
of  the  charter  of  the  commune  of  Laon,'  yet  there  must  have 
been  some  promptings  of  heart  in  the  act  of  Louis  which  permit- 
ted a  freeman  to  marry  a  serf  without  losing  his  liberty .^  There 
were  several  ways  in  which  manumission  could  be  effected.  Some- 
times the  servile  condition  was  ameliorated  by  converting  men 
of  the  church  into  men  of  the  king,"*  or  by  placing  ordinary  serfs  in 
the  custody  of  the  church.^  Sometimes  an  abbot,  as  that  of  St. 
Denis,  was  given  the  right  of  manumission  without  seeking  royal 

'  Luchaire,  Manuel,  380. 

2  See  this  dissertation,  p.  88,  n.  2,  and  on  the  avarice  of  Louis  VI.  in  general. 
Luchaire  Annates,  Introd.,  pp.  xxxv-xxxvi. 

aTardif,  No.  392. 

<  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  41. 

s  Luchaire,  Annales,  482.  Ecclesiastical  serfs  were  superior  in  point  of 
advantage  to  common  serfs.  (Luchaire,  Manuel,  310.)  Pascal  IL  in  11 14 
wrote  to  Galon  of  Paris :  Neque  enim  aequum  est  ecclesiasticam  familiam 
iisdem  conditionibus  coerceri,  quibus  servi  saecularium  hominum  coercerentur. — 
Guerard,  Cartul.  de  Notre-Dame  de  Paris,  I.  223.  On  the  other  hand,  royal 
serfs  were  still  better  off.  (Luchaire,  Manuel,  312). 
75 


76  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

authorization.'  In  St.  Denis,  St.  Quentin,  Soissons,  Laon,  and 
Orleans,  the  king  also  abolished  the  right  of  mortmain  for  all 
persons  above  seven  years  of  age.''  However,  in  such  emancipa- 
tions and  exemptions,  he  had  too  much  sagacity  to  go  to 
extremes.  The  prohibition  imposed  upon  enfranchised  serfs  of 
Laon  by  which  they  were  prevented  from  evading  military  service 
by  entering  th^  ranks  of  the  clergy,  the  chevalerie,  or  the  bour- 
geois, is  a  clear  enunciation  of  the  principle  that  those  indebted 
to  the  king  are  expected  to  do  the  king's  business.^  Thus  it  was 
no  unus^l  thing  to  find  men  of  low  birth,  in  his  reign,  figuring 
not  without  honor  in  the  host.'* 

Louis  endeavored  to  promote  centers  of  population  and  agri- 
culture by  means  of  assurances  of  protection,  exemption  for  a 
term  of  years,  and  by  franchises  and  liberties.  This  fact  is 
attested  by  numerous  ordinances.  The  cases  of  Touri,^  Beaune- 
la-Rolande,*  Augere  Regis,'  and  Etampes,^  which  were  repopu- 
lated  and  restored  to  a  prosperous  condition,  are  in  point. 

The  most  notable  instance  of  such  restoration,  however,  is  the 
case  of  Lorris,  in  Gatanais,  at  once  one  of  the  most  fertile  and 
yet  the  most  harassed  of  the  departments  of  the  He  de  France.  Its 
constitution  was  widely  imitated  in  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  cen- 

'  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  144.  Decrevimus  etiam  et  statuimus,  et  regio 
edicto  praecepimus,  ut  abhas  et  monachi  sancti  Dyonisii  sociorum  ejus  plenam, 
habeant  potestatem  de  servis  et  ancillis  ecclesie  emancipandis,  et  liberos  faci- 
endi,  consilio  capituli  sui,  non  requisite  assensu  vel  consilio  nostro. — Tardif, 
No.  347.     Cf.  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  160,  Abbey  of  Chalons-sur-Marne. 

'Combes,  62,  and  notes.  Louis  VII.  made  the  abolition  entire. — Luchaire, 
Atudes  sur  les  Actes  de  Louis   VI L.     Paris,  1885.     No.   15. 

3  Ego  Ludovicus  .  .  .  notum  fieri  volumus,  quod  homines  isti  sive  mulieres, 
quorum  nomina  subscribuntur,  liberi  servientes  nostri  sunt  et  licentur  ad  cleri- 
catum  sive  miliciam  et  ad  communionem,  sive  contradictione,  possunt  assumi  .  .  . 
Masculi  vero,  exceptis  clericis,  militibus  aut  in  communione  manentibus,  nisi 
morbo  vel  senio  graventur,  expediciones  nostras  bannales  debent,  si  submonitj 
fiunt. — Luchaire,  Annates,  Textes  Inedits,  p.  337-8. 

■•Vuitry.L  377,  n.  3. 

5  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  237. 

^  lbid.,^0.  165. 

T Ibid.,l<io.  273. 

*  Ibid.,  No.  333.  On  this  work  of  Louis  VI.,  see  Luchaire,  Annates,  introd., 
clxxxii-cxci.     More  than  fifty  acts  of  privilege  are  recorded  of  him. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      77 

turies.'  Out  of  the  depths  of  the  feudal  age  the  customs  of 
Lorris  reveal  in  a  remarkable  manner  the  purposes  and  teachings  of 
a  broader  and  more  expansive  era.  The  inhabitant  of  Lorris  paid 
only  the  nominal  sum  of  six  derniers  for  his  house  and  each  acre 
of  land  which  he  possessed.''  In  the  radius  of  Etampes,  Orleans 
and  Melun,  tallies,  corvees,  gifts  and  the  like  were  abolished  ^  and 
the  peasant  was  entitled  to  enjoy  without  molestation  the  fruits  of 
his  labors.*  Commerce  was  protected;  purchase  and  sale  were 
without  restraint.5  The  use  of  the  oven  in  Lorris  was  free.*  The 
tax  on  salt  was  reduced  to  one  dernier  per  cart  load.^  Military 
service  was  for  a  day  at  a  time  only.^  Allowance  was  made  for  a 
liberal  process  of  law,  in  that  fines  formerly  of  sixty  sous  were 
reduced  to  five,  and  those  of  five  sous  were  reduced  to  twelve 
dertiiers?  Resort  to  law  could  be  avoided  by  accommodation,'"  the 
manifest  intention  being  to  make  appeal  to  arms  of  rare  recourse." 
But  the  assurances  of  civil  liberty  were  perhaps  the  most  phenom- 
enal provisions  of  these  customs.  Article  8  provided  that  no  man 
of  Lorris  should  be  obliged  to  go  out  of  the  banlieue  to  plead  before 
the  king  —  an  example  of  the  principle  of  "justice  at  home" 
which  paved  the  way  for  a  provision  which  is  certainly  not  remote 
from  the  right  of  habeas  corpus.  "  No  one,"  runs  article  1 6,  "  shall 
be  detained  in  prison  if  he  can  furnish  bail  for  his  appearance 
in  court." 

The  charter  of  Lorris  found  a  ready  acceptance  elsewhere : 
in   Corcelles-le-Roi,    Saint   Michel,   Breteau    near   Auxerre,    La 

'The  history  of  the  Customs  of  Lorris  is  shrouded  in  obscurity;  tut  the 
fact  that  Louis  VL  has  the  honor  to  have  instituted  them  is  no  longer  in  doubt, 
although  the  date  of  their  establishment  is  not  known.  No  document  of  Louis 
VL  exists,  but  the  customs  are  attested  by  a  confirmation  (1155)  of  Louis  VIL 
(Luchaire,  Catal.,  No.  351)  and  another  by  Philip  Augustus  in  1187.  (Delisle, 
Etudes  surles  actes  de  Phillippe-Auguste,  No.  187).  See  Prou :  "Z^j  Coutumes 
de  Lorris  et  leur  propagation  aux  XII^  et  XIII^  sihles"  Nouvelle  Revue  kisto- 
riquede  droit  fran^ais  et  etranger,Yll\.  (1884),  pp.  139,  267,  441.  Viollet  Hist, 
du  Droit  fran^ais,  1 16. 

2  Art.  I.  *Art.  24.  '°  Art.  12. 

3Arts.4and5.  ^Art.  26.  "Art.  14. 

4  Art.  2.  ^  Art.  3. 

s Arts.  16 and  17.  'Art.  7. 


78  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

Brosse  in  the  diocese  of  Sens,  in  Le  Moulinet  and  La  Chapelle- 
le-Reine,  in  Barville,  Batilly,  Loup-des- Vignes,  Villeneuve- 
le-roi,  Montargis,  Voisines,  Clery  and  other  places.'  The  uni- 
formity of  the  customs  thus  inspired  by  Louis  le  Gros  and  con- 
tinued by  Louis  VIL  and  Philip  Augustus  must  have  produced, 
in  a  sense,  a  solidarity  not  otherwise  to  be  attained.^  Other  grants 
of  privilege  to  places  or  persons,  further  attest  Louis'  deliberate 
efforts  to  break  the  iron  grip  of  feudalism.^  But  such  qualified 
privileges  would  have  contributed  only  slightly  to  the  progress 
of  liberty  if  the  movement  had  not  found  in  the  communes  cen- 
ters of  aggressive  agitation. 

The  spell  which  feudalism  and  the  church  had  conspired  to 
cast  over  Europe  was  now  broken  by  the  rise  of  the  cities. 
The  strength  of  conscious  power  in  the  hearts  of  the  burgher 
class,  united  with  that  solidarity  which  common  interests  imparted, 
now  gave  birth  to  what  Europe  had  not  known  for  centuries  — 
the  people.  Europe  had  known  men,  but  the  vital  energy  of  a 
popular  spirit  had  been  lost  since  the  second  decline  of  imperial 
rights  in  the  west. 

It  is  not  in  the  province  of  this  dissertation  to  enter  into  a 
study  of  the  origin  of  the  mediaeval  communes.  Whether  their 
germ  be  found  in  the  revivification  of  latent  Roman  municipal  sur- 
vivals; or  in  the  assertion  of  Germanic  traditions,  not  lost,  but  dor- 
mant ;  whether  guild  corporations  of  merchants  or  craftsmen  be 
responsible  for  the  new  life,  or  whether  the  initial  impulse  be 
found  in  some  religious  order,  is  not  germane.*  It  is  futile 
to  try  to  identify  the  origin  of  the  communes  with  any  one 
form,  nor  will  any  collocation    of  these  four  elements   explain 

'  Ordonnances,  t.  VIII,  p.  500  ;  Viollet,  116,  citing  Warkonig  Histoire  de  la 
Flandre,  I.  305.  The  text  of  the  Customs  of  Lorris  may  be  found  in  the  Ordon- 
nances, t.  XI.  pp.  200-203,  in  Prou,  p.  125  ff,  of  the  book  form  edition.  An 
English  translation  is  in  Guizot,  Hist,  of  Civilization  in  France,  Course  IV- 
Lect.  17. 

'Combes,  300. 

3Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  lOO,  102,  123,  197,  198,237,  244,  551,  553.554, 
555,  576,  586,  600,  608,  611.  612. 

<Luchaire,  Inst.  Man.,  II.,  159  ff.  has  a  terse  presentation  of  the  various 
theories  of  origin. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      79 

the  uprising.  The  fact  remains  that  the  class  of  simple  freemen 
who  had  disappeared  in  the  ninth  century,  but  the  nature  and 
condition  of  whose  occupation  had  prevented  them  from  being  as 
tightly  drawn  into  the  feudal  toils  as  others,  come  to  light  in 
the  eleventh,  and  in  the  twelfth  achieve  political  recognition. 
That  the  charters  of  the  communes  had  for  their  prime  object 
the  restriction  of  the  taxing  power  of  the  seigneur ;  that  their 
magistracy  derived  its  numbers  and  attributes  largely  from  pre- 
vious association  ;  that  the  fragments  of  customary  law  found  in 
the  charters  point  to  Germanic  origin  ;  that  the  communes  of  the 
twelfth  century  were  aristocratic  rather  than  democratic — these 
are  the  only  statements  which  may  be  safely  predicated.' 

Leaving  aside  then  the  question  of  origins,  a  prime  condition 
for  communal  life  certainly  existed  in  the  local  contiguity  of 
those  dwelling  within  walls.  It  was  in  many  cases,  we  may  believe, 
also  an  active  cause,  as  much  as  the  guild  or  religious  associations. 
For  it  was  natural  that  these  communities,  though  governed 
entirely  from  without,  should  yet  acquire  some  solidarity  based 
on  common  interests.  The  ability  to  create  wealth  led  the  third 
estate  inevitably  to  devise  means  to  preserve  wealth.  Association, 
the  only  recourse  of  the  weak,  was  the  bar  set  against  feudal  arbi- 
trariness.' Beside,  there  was  an  actual  economic  need.  The  towns- 
men demanded  protection  against  the  exactions  of  the  clergy  and 
the  nobility.  The  event  of  first-rate  importance  in  bringing 
about  this  political  renaissance,  was  the  invasions  of  the  North- 
men.3     The  cities,   roused  from  their  lethargy  of  four  centuries 

^Q'vcy,  Etablissmentsde  Rouen,  I.,  481. 

2  Compare  the  Carlovingian  legislation  against  the  conjurationes,  true  fore- 
runners of  the  later  efforts  towards  a  more  perfect  union.— Waitz,  IV.,  362-4. 

3 The  incursions  of  the  Northmen  had  been  a  prime  cause  of  the  erection 
of  castles.  (Tunc  quoque  domus  ecclesiarum  per  Gallias  universas,  praeter 
quas  municipia  civitatum  velcastrorum  servaverunt,  etc. — Rod.  Glaber,  19.  Col- 
lection de  Textes  de  la  Societe  de  PEcole  des  Charles.  Cf.  the  edict  of  Pistes, 
864,  of  Charles  the  Bald.  De  pace  in  Regno  stabilienda,  postscriptum  I.  in 
^aXttr,  Corpus  Juris  Germanici  antiqui  111.,  i^t-T.  Berlin,  1824.)  In  medi- 
aeval MSS.  municipium  is  often  used  in  the  sense  of  castle  (Suger,  10,  44 
and  n.  i).  Sometimes  caslrum,  castellum  or  burgus  appear  in  the  same  sense. 
(Galbert  de  Bruges,  cc.  ix.,  xxviii.  Jean  d'Ypres,  in  Mon.  Germ.  hist.  Script., 
XXV.,  768).     The  agglomerated  population  under  the  walls  of  the  chateau  was 


8o  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

and  forced  to  take  vigorous  and  concerted  action,  acquired  a 
unity  not  afterwards  lost.  This  unity  brought  with  it  a  conscious- 
ness of  power,  and  from  this  period  on  we  find  in  the  scant 
records  remaining  not  a  few  instances  of  rebellion  against  count 
or  bishop.  The  Peasants'  Revolt'  in  Normandy  in  997,  whether 
or  not  it  affected  the  cities  directly,  at  least  shows  the  prevalence 
of  the  spirit.  At  Cambrai,  as  early  as  957,  the  townsmen  shut 
the  gates  against  their  bishop;''  Beauvais  rose  in  1074  and  the 
men  of  Rheims  in  1082.3  Le  Mans  was  crushed  with  frightful 
severity  in  io73,''  but  in  Amiens  the  revolution  was  so  firmly 
planted  that  in  1091  it  was  able  to  conclude  an  alliance  with 
the  Count  of  Flanders.^  In  11 14  (or  11 16)  Angers  in  Anjou 
burst  forth;**  Lille  and  St.  Omer  in  Flanders,  in  1127,^  and  so 
the  list  grows  longer  and  the  circle  widens  as  the  years  of 
revolution  pass. 

It  is  usual  to  say  that  the  Crusades  were  a  prime  cause  of  the 
rise  of  the  communes.  But  we  have  seen  above  that  Cambrai, 
Beauvais,  Rheims,  Le  Mans  and  Amiens,  in  the  region  of  the  North 
alone,  not  to  speak  of  others  elsewhere,  had  reached  the  term  of 
communal  individuality  before  the  first  crusade.  In  other  words, 
the  commune  existed  as  a  de  facto  institution  before  the  Crusades 
began.  The  moral  fact  inherent  in  the  rise  of  the  communes 
has  been  lost  sight  of  in  the  dazzle  and  glitter  of  arms,  attendant 
upon  the  Crusades.  The  struggle  of  the  mediaeval  communes 
in  France,  quite  as  much  as  in  Lombard  Italy,  was  the  struggle 
for  an  idea  really  greater  than  the  idea  which  animated  the 
crusading  movement.  The  Crusades  plunged  Europe  into  three 
centuries  of   rapine  and  slaughter — into  a  warfare  in  which  not 

called  suburbani  (Galbert  de  Burges,  c.  ix.)  who  became  the  bourgeois  of  the 
communal  epoch.  {Ibid.,  cc.  ix.,  xxviii.  Cf.  the  Charters  of  St.  Omer  of  1127, 
1 128.) 

'  See  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest,  I.,  256-7. 

^Brentano,  31. 

sLuchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.  158,  note. 

*  Freeman's  Norman  Conquest,  IV.,  550-1. 

5  Wauters,  Les  libertis  communales,  I.,  365  ff. 

*  Norgate,  England  under  the  Angevins,  I.,  234-5. 
7  Hermann  de  Tournai,  M.  G.  H.  SS ,  XIV.,  289. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      8 1 

only  men  and  women  but  thousands  of  children,  too,  were 
sacrificed  for  a  purpose  less  worthy  than  that  which  character- 
ized the  warfare  which  racked  Europe  in  the  centuries  follow- 
ing the  second  decline  of  imperial  rights  in  the  West.  The 
conflict  of  pope  and  emperor,  of  emperor  and  Lombard 
cities,  the  wars  of  Otto  I.  and  Henry  III.  with  the  great 
ducal  houses,  the  Norman  Conquest,  the  struggle  between  the 
Angevins  and  the  French  kings,  all  these  were  wars  for  real 
or  fancied  rights  more  real,  more  legitimate  and  less  fanciful 
than  were  the  wars  of  the  Crusades.  Crusading  degenerated  into 
a  brilliant  folly  like  that  of  tourneying,  because  the  idea  was  too 
vague,  the  legitimacy  of  the  movement  too  doubtful.  The  idea 
was  mystical,  even  as  its  great  preacher,  St.  Bernard,  was  a  mystic. 
No  one  needs  to  be  told  that  the  results  of  the  Crusades  were 
far  different  from  the  intentions  of  their  promoters  :  "Increasing 
at  first  the  power  of  the  popes  and  the  Roman  hierarchy,  they 
tended  at  last  to  impair  and  diminish  it.  Expected  to  knit 
together  the  Latin  and  Greek  churches,  they  made  their  divisions 
widerand  added  a  feeling  of  exacerbation  to  their  mutual  relations. 
Intended  to  destroy  forever  Mahometan  power  in  the  East,  they 
really  contributed  to  strengthen  it.  Undertaken  as  a  religious 
war  to  propagate  the  faith  of  Christ  with  the  sword  of  Mahomet, 
and  to  vindicate  Christian  dogma  against  unbelievers,  they  really 
subserved  the  interests  of  free  thought."'  But  apart  from  these 
wholly  unforeseen  and  anomalous  results,  the  Crusades  were  less 
fruitful  of  good  effects  than  generally  believed.  The  political 
results  to  Europe  were  slight.'  Moreover,  the  economic  results 
were  quite  as  much  a  cause.  Events  are  formative  or  result- 
ant in  their  character  according  to  the  point  of  view,  but 
in  the  study  of  history  the  point  of  view  is  the  point  quite  as 
much  as  the  thing  seen  from  it.  In  measuring  their  effects,  the 
Crusades  must  be  taken  as  a  whole.  Their  results  were  the  results 
of  a  cumulative  movement.  It  is  quite  impossible  to  posit  defi- 
nite effects  to  any  one  of  them  ;  how  little,  then,  can  be  positively 

'  Owen,  Skeptics  of  the  Italian  Renaissance,  p.  24. 

a  Green,  Short  History  of  the  English  People,  does  not  mention  the  crusades, 
except  the  incidental  fact  that  Richard  I.  was  a  leader  of  the  second  crusade. 


82  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

predicated  as  to  the  effects  of  the  movement  upon  France  in  the 
twelfth  century  when  the  Crusades  were  yet  in  their  beginning? 

If  it  is  impossible  to  distinguish  with  precision  between  the 
civilization  sprung  of  the  Crusades  as  a  European  movement  and 
that  which  might  have  occurred  without  them,  it  is  more  impos- 
sible to  ascribe  any  but  the  vaguest  and  slightest  results  which 
might  have  accrued  from  them  to  France  in  the  reign  of  Louis 
VI.  Mere  absence  from  home  of  the  barons  was,  I  am  inclined  to 
believe,  the  most  advantage  derived  by  Louis  VI.  from  this 
great  European  movement.  The  fighting  instinct  born  in  the 
blood  and  transmitted  through  two  centuries  of  private  warfare, 
denied  expression  at  home,  owing  to  the  Truce  of  God  and  the 
vigor  of  the  king,^  sought  relief  in  foreign  war.  The  well-known 
letter  of  Suger^  to  Louis  VII.  is  evidence  that  France  felt  the 
peace  secured  by  the  absence  of  turbulent  barons  more  than  any- 
thing else.  The  Crusades,  in  their  inception,  were  a  class  move- 
ment, planned  by  princes  and  barons.  They  had  little  of  the  vital 
energy  of  a  popular  spirit.  The  people  were  more  concerned 
in  seeing  the  despoilers  of  their  peace  going  away  than  in  going 
themselves.  After  the  first  flush  of  triumph  which  followed  the 
capture  of  Jerusalem,  Europe  again  became  absorbed  in  the 
nearer  and  keener  struggle  of  emperor  and  pope.  Men  settled 
back  into  the  old  lines.  When  Edessa  fell,  the  work-a-day  world 
had  almost  forgotten  that  there  was  such  a  Christian  outpost  in 
Palestine.  The  shock  of  startled  surprise  that  thrilled  Europe 
when  Edessa  was  taken  is  proof  positive  of  how  slight  was  the 
permanent  effect  which  the  first  Crusade  had  exercised  upon  the 
mind  of  Europe  in  the  twelfth  century. 

Having  thus  considered  the  origins  of  the  communal  move- 
ment, so  far  as  necessary,  it  remains  to  inquire  into  the  essential 
feature  of  the  mediaeval  French  commune.  The  essential  ele- 
ments of  a  commune  were,  first,  an  association  confirmed 
by    a   charter ;    second,   a    code    of    fixed  and    sanctioned    cus- 

'  According  to  Rambaud,  Civilisation  fran^aise.  Vol.  I.,  p.  224,  Louis  IX., 
in  establishing  the  Quarantaine-le-Roi,  simply  revived  an  ordinance  of  Louis 
VL 

»H.  F.,  XV.,  509. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      83 

toms ;  third,  a  series  of  privileges  which  always  included 
municipal  or  elective  government/  The  charter  was  at  once  a 
feudal  title  and  a  scheme  of  government.  The  principle  that 
the  commune  had  no  right  to  exist  without  its  charter  was  an 
invariable  rule  of  the  early  period  of  the  communal  era.'  The 
commune  was,  therefore,  a  sort  of  petit  etat.  Yet  no  city  of 
France  ever  achieved  the  republican  freedom  of  Florence  or 
Venice  ;  no  French  king  ever  tolerated  such  municipal  autonomy 
as  the  emperor  was  forced  to  abide  in  Lombard  Italy .3  Orleans, 
the  only  one  which  tried  to  make  itself  a  commune  in  the  highest 
sense,  was  crushed." 

The  ancient  legend  that  Louis  VL  was  the  founder  ^  of  the 
communes  is  as  untrue  as  the  statement  that  he  was  their  direct 
enemy.*     The  documentary  history  of  the  early  communal  epoch 

'  Brequigny,  Ordonnances,  XI.,  Introd.  vii, 

*Luchaire,  Manuel,  414. 

3  Freeman's  Norttiati  Conquest,  IV.,  349. 

*By  Louis  VII.  H.  F.,  XII.,  196;  Hist  du  Rot  Louis  VII.,  c.  i.  See 
Luchaire,  Inst.  Man.,  II.,  170. 

SBrussel,  I.,  178.  Such  categorical  statements  as  that  are  not  uncommon 
among  the  early  historians.  The  Charte  of  1814  will  be  remembered  to  have 
given  this  statement  royal  dress.  A  singular  feature  must  be  noticed  here  : 
It  is  the  common  belief  that  communal  privileges  were  granted  the  bour- 
geois by  the  king,  in  order  to  relieve  his  subjects  of  grievous  exactions, 
or  at  least  prevent  such  exactions  from  being  wholly  empirical.  If  this 
were  so  it  ought  to  follow  that  the  communes  be  started  in  places  where 
feudal  oppressions  were  worst ;  whereas  we  find  many  of  those  recognized 
by  Louis  le  Gros  in  fiefs  of  the  church.  Half  the  communes  known  to 
owe  their  foundation  to  him  are  so  situated  —  Noyon,  Beauvais,  Soissons, 
Saint-Riquier,  Corbie.  (This  enumeration  does  not  include  Laon,  Amiens, 
or  Bruyferes-sous-Laon,  where  money  figured  as  the  prime  motive.)  Now 
the  condition  of  serfs  bound  to  the  church  glebe  was  better  than  average. 
(See  this  dissertation,  p.  75,  n.  5.)  What  is  the  conclusion?  The  bishops  were 
an  urban,  the  nobles  a  rural,  aristocracy;  in  the  cities  popular  feeling  was 
rife,  and  Louis  VI.  saw  in  them  points  of  resistance  to  the  prevailing  regime. 
This  fact  to  me  is  luminous,  for  it  shows  that  he  did  tnore  than  let  the  movement 
merely  take  its  course.  M.  Dareste  comes  very  near  to  the  truth  when  he  says  : 
"L'erreur  si  longtemps  accreditee,  qui  attribuait  a  la  royautd  I'initiative  de  la 
revolution  communale,  pent  s'expliquer  par  le  fait  de  son  intervention  progres- 
sive dans  le  gouvernement  des  villes." — U Administration  de  la  France.  I.,  173. 

*Giry,  ^tablissements  de  Rouen,  I.,  441. 


84  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

is  very  scanty;'  and  opinions  advanced  regarding  the  policy 
pursued  by  Louis  VI.  and  even  Louis  VII.  must  necessarily  be 
hardly  more  than  inferences ;  although  with  the  latter  there  is 
some  degree  of  consistency  in  municipal  organizations,'  Louis 
VI.  really  had  no  policy  towards  them  save  that  of  ejcpediency.3 
He  favored  them  when  it  paid  him  so  to  do  ;  he  crushed  them 
as  readily  when  it  profited  him.  M.  Luchaire*  has  happily 
characterized  his  attitude  as  one  of  demi-hostility.  But  he  was 
far  from  allowing  the  movement  to  take  its  own  course.  The 
act  relating  to  Saint-Riquier  ^  is  proof  positive.  In  the  imme- 
diate realm  Louis  VI.  was  unwilling  to  sanction  in  others  rights 
and  prerogatives  rivalling  his  own.  But  from  the  planting  of 
communes  in  vassal  territory  the  king  received  both  negative  and 
positive  benefit ;  negative  because  an  obnoxious  local  authority 
was  somewhat  neutralized  ;  positive  because  the  acquisition  of  local 
self-government  was  purchased  of  the  king  with  little  sacrifice 
of  his  own  sovereignty.*  The  territory  of  the  communes,  further- 
more, became  king's  land.  In  the  eleven  cases  in  which  Louis 
VI.  granted  communal  charters,  every  grant  is  made  outside  of 
the  royal  domain,  save  that  of  Dreux.'  These  were  Noyon,^ 
Mantes,'  Laon,'°  Amiens,"  Corbie,"  Saint-Riquier,''  Soissons,** 
Bruy^res-sous-Laon  and  its  dependencies,  /.  e.,  Cheret,  Vorges 
andValbon;'^  Beauvais,'*  Dreux,''  and  the  collective  commune 

'  Giry,  Etablissements  de  Rouen,  I.,  145. 

^Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,   140. 

3 "Ob  und  inwieweit  Ludwig  die  bereits  langer  bestehende  Bewegung  zur 
Bildung  sogenannter  '  Kommunen '  nach  bestimmten  Gesichtspunkten  zur 
Erweiterung  seines  Machtbereiches  oder  Verstarkung  seines  Einflusses  im 
Reiche  auszuniitzen  sich  bemiiht  hat,  konnen  wir  nicht  nachweisen ;  gegen 
eine  solche  Tendenz  sprechen  wenigstens  die  vielen  Widerspriiche  in  seinem 
Verhalten  gegeniiber  den  Kommunen."  —  Hirsch,  13. 

*  Les  Communes  Francaises,  276. 

5  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  372.  Guizot,  Hist.  Civilization  in  France.  Course 
IV.,  Lect.  19. 

*  Walker,  104.  7  Luchaire,  JLes  Communes  Francaises y  267. 
8  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  64.  ^  Ibid.,  No.  105. 

^°Ibid.,  No.  124.  ^^Ibid.,  No.  372.  ^^  Ibid.,  No.  603. 

^"■Ibid.,  No.  169.  ^''Ibid.,  No.  377.  '?  Ibid.,  No.  624. 

"Ibid.,  No.  337.  ^ilbid..  No.  435. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      85 

of  Vailli,  Conde,  Chavonnes,  Celles,  Pargni  and  Filiain,  near 
Soissons.'  We  are  in  complete  darkness  as  to  the  circumstances 
attending  the  foundation'of  Dreux ;  the  date  is  unknown,  even 
approximately  (i  108-1 137).^  It  is  probable  that'  since  the  Vexin 
was  a  marcher  county,  Louis  VI.  was  led  to  believe  that  a  large 
degree  of  autonomy  might  make  the  place  a  better  bulwark  against 
the  English  foe.  We  know  Philip  Augustus  adopted  this  plan  with 
success,  the  suggestion  of  which  not  unlikely  lay  in  Dreux  of  the 
Vexin.3 

A  study  of  the  charters  of  the  communes  is  instructive.  Louis 
VL  was  a  soldier.  As  such  he  most  needed  men  and  money.  In 
establishing  a  commune  in  the  sphere  of  a  feudal  lord  he  secured 
the  double  advantage  of  securing  money  and  sowing  dragons' 
teeth  in  the  path  of  the  lord.  The  cases  in  which  the  men  of  a 
commune  are  granted  exemption  from  military  service  are  very 
rare."  In  enumerating  privileges  granted  by  Louis  VI.  the  repe- 
tition of  the  denial  of  exemption  from  military  service  is  striking. ^ 
And  yet  there  is  little  foundation  for  the  favorite  belief  of  histori- 
ans* that  Louis  VI. ,  in  his  wars,  made  large  use  of  the  men  of  the 
communes  as  such.  Contemporary  chronicles  show  little  indication 
of  such  a  host.     The  most  of  his  expeditions  were  made  at  the 

'  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  626.  On  these  rural  or  federative  communes  see 
Luchaire,  Les  Cotnmunes  Francoises,  68-96.  The  radiant  character  they  had 
served  to  accentuate  the  movement  against  bishop  and  baron.  —  Luchaire, 
Inst.  Mon.,\l.,  178. 

^2  All  that  is  known  of  the  history  of  Dreux  is  comprehended  in  Luchaire, 
Inst.Mon.,  IL,  6,  note  1. 

3  Walker,  105.  "la  commune  etait  avant  tout,  a  ses  yeux,  une  forteresse, 
une  instrument  de  guerre  destine  a  la  defensive."  —  Luchaire  Les  Milices  com- 
munales,  Acad,  des  Sciences  tnoral.  et  polit.  1888,  p.  165. 

■*  Revue  Hist,  xliv.,  (1890)  p.  326.  Prou  :  De  la  nature  du  service  militaire 
du  par  les  roturiers  aux  XI^  et  XII^  slides. 

s  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  IL,  194.  Cf.  The  prohibition  upon  the  enfranchised 
serfs  of  Laon ;  see  this  dissertation,  p.  76.  n.  3.  In  the  renunciation  of  rights 
over  the  lands  of  Saint-Martin-des-Champs  in  Pontoise  (1128)  the  charter  pro- 
vides, "excepta  sola  expeditione." — Luchaire, /«j/.  iI/o«.,  II. ,  150,  n.  3.  Cf. 
Annales,  Nos.  iii  (where  even  the  bourgeois  of  Paris  are  held  to  service),  124, 
419,  440.  Boutaric  203.  The  customs  of  Lorris  were  exceptional  in  that 
military  service  was  required  for  a  day  at  a  time  only  (Art.  3). 

*  Even  Vuitry,  I.,  376  has  fallen  into  this  error. 

f  OF  THB  ^ 

(tTNIVERSlTY  ) 


86  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

head  of  the  body  of  knights  who  were  always  around  him.'  For 
a  distant  campaign  he  convoked  the  contingents  due  him,  in 
virtue  of  feudal  law,  of  seigneurs,  bishops,  abbots,  and  vassals  of 
the  crown.''  The  church  furnished  contingents  from  the  parishes, 
organized  by  their  cures,  as  a  consequence  of  the  Truce  of  God, 
promulgated  at  Clermont,  but  such  service  was  gratuitous  and 
not  to  be  confounded  with  the  feudal  service. 3  The  communes, 
as  such,  do  not  appear  under  arms,  even  in  the  army  of  1124, 
when  the  emperor  Henry  V.  thought  to  revive  the  days  of  the 
Ottos.  The  terms  employed  by  Suger  indicate  -that  forces  were 
there  from  Rheims,  Chalons,  Laon,  Soisson,  Etampes,  Amiens, 
Orleans,  Paris,  and  the  country  surrounding  each ;  but  they  were 
there  as  men  of  a  common  host,  not  as  communal  troops.'*  There 
is  no  reasdii  to  believe  this  host  was  anything  else  than  a  general 
levee,  similar  to  that  called  out  after  the  bitter  defeat  of  Bremule,^ 
(11 19).  French  history  was  not  without  such  precedents  in  that 
time.*  Troops  from  Soissons,  Amiens,  Noyon,  Mantes  and  Corbeil 
may  hav^been  there,  though  the  chronicle  does  not  say  so  of  the 
last  three,  but  they  were  there,  not  as  autonomous  forces,  but  as 
parts  of  a  common  army.     The  revolution  of  the  ninth  century 

'  Even  in  the  battle  of  Bremule  (11 19)  Louis  had  only  the  knights  of  Paris 
and  the  Vexin.     (Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  357.) 

=  Luchaire,  Les  Milices  Communales,  Acad,  des  Sciences  moral,  et  polit.,  1888, 
p.  160.  See  Suger's  enumeration  of  the  vassals  of  the  crown  who  went  into 
Auvergne  with  Louis  VL — Suger,  108. 

3 "Oil  r^glise  rendit  un  service  gracieux  au  roi,  ce  fut  quand  elle  organisa 
les  milices  paroissiales,  je  veux  dire  ces  petites  troupes  qui,  sous  la  conduite  des 
cur^s,  allaient  aider  le  souverain  a  chatier  les  rebelles  et  a  maintenir  la  paix. 
Mais  il  faut  se  garder  de  confondre  le  service  militarie  que  I'Eglise  demandait 
ainsi  aux  fiddles  avec  le  service  d'ost  et  de  chevauch^e.  Les  milices  dont  park 
Ord.  Vit.  etaient  (Book  VIII.,  chap,  xxiv;  Book  XL,  chap,  xxxiv.;  Book  XII., 
chap.  19)  une  consequence  immediate  de  la  Paix  de  Dieu." — Revue  Hist,,  x\\\., 
(1890)  pp.  325-6.  Prou  :  De  la  nahire  du  service  militaire  du  par  les  roturieurs 
aux  XI''  et  XII^  sitcles.  For  a  case  of  a  fighting  priest  with  his  parochial 
force,  see  Suger,  65. 

*  Luchaire,  Les  Milices  communales,  Acad,  des  Sciences  moral,  et  polit.,  1888, 
p.  161.     See  Suger's  account  of  the  projected  invasion,  c.  xxvii. 

s  Suger,  92  ;  Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  365  ff. 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  XL,  48-9,  gives  the  cases. 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      87 

had  thrust  the  relations  of  a  vassal  into  those  of  a  subject  and  a 
citizen/  and  the  feudal  military  tenures  had  superseded  the  ear- 
lier system  of  public  defense.*  Louis  VI.,  by  making  the  bour- 
geois liable  to  bear  arms,  was  in  reality  reasserting  a  national, 
and  hence  an  old  principle — a  revival  of  the  ancient  duty  of  free- 
men.^ He  sought  to  make  every  man  a  patriot.  The  commune 
was  an  instrument  of  war  to  be  used  when  the  state  had  to  fall 
back  of  its  regular  fighting  force  upon  the  hearths  of  its  people, 
as  in  the  case  of  the  invasion  of  Henry  V."* 

Though  the  king  obtained  in  the  use  of  communal  militia  a 
body  of  troops  which  could  be  more  promptly  put  in  the  field, 
when  he  wished,  than  those  amenable  to  an  intermediate  noble,^ 
still  the  chief  advantage  to  the  crown  was  not  in  the  men,  but  in 
the  money  the  communes  secured  to  the  king.  The  desire  for 
money  will  often  explain  the  vacillating  attitude  of  Louis  VI., 
and  even  of  Louis  VII.     Louis  VI.  loved  gold*  to  the  verge  even 

'  Baluze,  t.  II.,  44. 

==  The  inadequacy  of  feudal  military  service  is  well  shown  in  the  expedition 
which  Louis  directed  against  Thomas  de  Marie,  when  the  chevaliers  refused 
almost  unanimously  to  cooperate  with  the  king  in  the  seige  of  Creci : — De  mil- 
itibus  autem  vix  quispiam  coarmari  voluit,  cumque  aperte  eis  proditionis  arces- 
seret,  accitis  pedestribus,  ipsi,  etc.  (H.  F.,  XII.,  262.)  Whence  it  appears  that 
Louis  had  to  rely  upon  contingents  from  ecclesiastical  seigneuries.  (Consult 
Luchaire,  Jnst.  Mon.,  II.,  52,  note  2.) 

3  See  the  article  by  M.  Prou  before  referred  to.  M.  Prou  argues  that  hostis 
and  expeditio  originally  had  reference  to  any  sort  of  military  service ;  that  their 
obligation  was  not  upon  feudal  tenants  as  such,  but  was  a  continuation  of  the 
ancient  duty  of  freemen.  I  doubt  if  the  continuity  of  such  requirements  was 
perfect  as  he  holds.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  act  of  Louis  VI.  was,  as  stated 
above,  a  revival  of  the  former  practice. 

■♦This  appears  in  the  charter  to  Augere-Regis  (1119).  "Neque  ipsi  in 
expedicionem  vel  in  equitatum,  nisi  per  communitatem,  scilicet  si  omnes  com- 
muniter  ire  juberentur  et  irent." — Ordonnances,  VII.,  444.  Luchaire,  Annates, 
No.  273.  And  in  this,  to  the  serfs  of  the  Laonnais  (1129).  "Masculi  vero 
....  expediciones  nostras  bannales  debent,  si  submoniti  fiunt." — Ibid.  p.  338. 

sSee  Boutaric,  156-60. 

*See  the  complaint  (1120)  of  the  people  of  Compiegne  on  account  of  the 
degradation  of  the  coin  (Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  296).  Louis  VI. 's  act  of  recti- 
fication is  in  Mabillon,  598.  Compare  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  I,  100 ;  Manuel, 
591.     Vuitry,  I.,  437,  cites  similar  complaints  in  1112  and  1 113. 


88  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

of  compromising  his  honor  to  obtain  it.  Amiens,'  Laon^  and 
Bruyeres-sous-Laon  3  were  each  founded  in  consideration  of  a 
sum  of  money.  The  history  of  Laon  especially,  is  eloquent 
testimony  of  Louis  VI. 's  cold-blooded  way  of  raising  money. 

If  the  attitude  of  the  king  was  determined  by  circumstances, 
that  of  the  clergy  and  nobles  was  no  less  so  determined ;  only  in 
their  case  it  was  one  of  unfailing  hostility."*  The  dignitaries  of 
the  church  were  often  merely  barons  covered  with  the  alb,  and 
saw  in  the  new  institution  a  partial  subversion  of  their  rights. ^ 
The  words  of  Guibert  de  Nogent*  are  echoed  by  Bernard  of 
Clairvaux  and  Ives  of  Chartres.^  More  than  one  pope  demanded 
the  abolition  of  a  commune  founded  in  ecclesiastical  holdings.^ 

'  At  Amiens  the  burghers  by  outbidding  the  bishop  retained  their  liberties. 
(Guib.  de  Nogent,  X.,  45)  See  Thierry,  Hist,  du  tiers-eiat,  318. 

2  In  the  case  of  Laon,  Louis  VI.  granted  (mi)  the  charter  to  the  citizens, 
and  then  revoked  it  (1112)  in  payment  of  a  higher  sum  by  Gaudri,  the  bishop. 
In  1 128  a  charter  was  definitively  granted.  "  II  est  tres  precieux  pour  I'histoire 
du  droit  p^nal."  Violett,  Hist,  du  Droit  frangais,  115.  The  history  of  Laon 
has  often  been  recounted.  See  Thierry,  Lettres  sur  rhist.  de  Franc^,  XVI.; 
Martin,  III.,  251-2;  Clamageran,  I.,  232  ff.;  Guizot,  Hist.  Civilization  in 
France,  IV.,  Lect.  17;  Lu'chaire,  ^wwa/^'j-,  Nos.  124,  132,  189,  425;  Guib.  de 
Nogent,  H.  F.  XII.,  250. 

3  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  175.  Louis  VII.  was  bribed  to  abolish  Auxerre 
in  1 175  {Ibid.,  176).     In  general,  on  this  phase,  see  Ibid.,  pp.  192-4. 

<  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  176  ;  Les  Communes  Francaises,  244. 

5  Hegel  surely  is  in  error  when  he  ascribes  grants  of  charters  by  the  clergy 
to  their  good  will.  From  first  to  last  they  manifested  hostility.  See  Luchaire, 
Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  163.  Noyon  seems  to  afford  the  rare  instance  of  a  commune 
founded  on  petition  of  a  bishop  in  order  to  reconcile  the  townsmen  and  the 
chapter ;  but  this  is  not  beyond  peradventure. — See  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II., 
177,  note  2.  In  Corbie  the  three  orders  united  in  an  application  to  Louis  le 
Ores. — Ibid.,  IT.,  178,  note  3;  Annates,  No.  337. 

'  Communis  novum  ac  pessissimum  nomen,  sic  se  habet,  ut  capite  censi 
solitum  servitutis  debitum  dominis  semel  in  anno  solvant,  etc. — De  vita  sua,  Bk. 
IIL,  c.  vii.;  H.  F.,  XII.,  250. 

7  Pacta  enim  et  constitutiones  vel  etiam  juramenta  quae  sunt  contra  leges 
canonicas  vel  auctoritates  sanctorum  Patrum,  sicut  vos  ipsi  bene  nostris  nullius 
sunt  nomenti. — Epist.  77,  H.  F.,  XV.,  105. 

*  For  example,  Pope  Eugenius  II.  demanded  the  destruction  of  the  charter 
of  Sens  (1147  or  1149)  (Thierry,  Lettres  sur  V Histoire  de  France,  XIX.),  and 
Innocent,  II.,  that  of  Rheims  {Ibid.,  XX.). 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES.      89 

The  attitude  of  the  chatelains  was  hardly  less  tolerant.  Their 
conduct  toward  the  bourgeois  depended  largely  upon  their  rela- 
tions with  the  bishop.  The  charter  of  Amiens  was  directed 
against  the  house  of  Boves,  which  had  become  hereditarily 
invested  in  the  chatellany,'  while  Beauvais^  had  its  origin  in  an 
effort  of  Louis  VI.  to  preserve  the  chatelain  and  bourgeois  from 
the  bishop. 

The  amount  of  political  freedom  accorded  by  Louis  VL  varied 
with  circumstances.  In  the  interests  of  local  self-government 
something  of  royal  supervision  had  to  be  sacrificed  ;  but  there  is 
little  preciseness  in  this  regard.^  Owing  to  abuses  by  the  prevot, 
the  commune  was  allowed  the  privilege  of  trying  its  own  cases  ; 
this  privilege  was  a  conditional  one,  however,  dependent  upon 
strict  support  of  law.  In  event  of  malfeasance,  the  rights 
accorded  reverted  to  the  king."  The  process  of  Joslin,  the  bishop 
of  Soissons,  against  the  commune  (1x36)  and  the  sentence  of  the 
court,  is  evidence  that  Louis  VI.  kept  the  communes  well  in  hand, 
allowing  them  neither  to  be  derelict  nor  arrogant. ^  In  cities 
holding  directly  of  the  crown,  there  was  absolute  repression  of 
the  communes.     The  two  most  important  cities  of  the  realm  were 

'Luchaire,  Insl.  Mon.,  II.,  177,  note  3;  Thierry,  A^mA  du  tiers-etat,  318 
The  chatelains  by  the  twelfth  century  had  become  hereditary  (see  Galbert  de 
Bruges,  pp.  97,  note  i  and  150,  note  i,  with  references  there  given).  Enguer- 
rand  de  Boves  was  the  father  Thomas  de  Marie  (Suger,  83,  note  3). 

2  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  177,  note  4.  On  Beauvais,  see  Guizot,  Hist,  of 
Civilization  in  France,  IV.,  appendix  iy.  The  gradual  evolution  of  the  com- 
mune of  Beauvais  is  seen  in  the  successive  concessions  of  Louis  VI.  (Luchaire, 
Annates,  Nos.  174,  198,  322,  603). 

3  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  191-2. 

*  Ordonnances,  XL,  Introd.  xliii.,  by  Br^quigny.  Cf.  Pardessus,  347  :~"  Sans 
doute,  dans  un  certain  nombre  de  communes,  les  habitants  obtinrent  le  droit  de 
choisir  des  magistrals,  qui  veillaient  a  I'administration  intdrieure,  a  I'execution 
des  statuts,  a  la  defense  generale,  et  qui  rendaient  la  justice  ;  mais  c'etaient 
simplement  des  garanties  pour  le  maintien  des  concessions  obtenues.  ...  A 
I'instant  ou  les  parties  se  trouvaient  en  presence,  soit  pour  prevenii,  soit  pour 
pacifier  une  insurrection,  le  seigneur  ^tait  en  possession  de  droits,  dont  on  ne 
contestait  pas  I'existence,  et  dont  seulement  on  voulait  faire  reformer  1 'abuse  ou 
I'extension  injuste." 

5  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  567.  The  process  of  the  court  is  given  in  full  in 
1-anglois,  Textes  relatifs  a  Vllistoire  du  Parlement  de  Paris,  No.  VIII. 


90  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

not  communes  —  Paris  and  Orleans.'  The  privileged  towns,'' 
having  no  local  independent  government  were  favored  by  the 
king,  who  in  the  possession  of  privileges  and  exemptions  made 
little  distinction  between  them  and  the  great  communes.  Yet 
Paris,3  Orleans,"*  Etampes,^  Bourges*  and  Compiegne' were  better 
off  for  the  restraint  of  the  royal  hand.  The  civil  and  commercial 
advantages  which  Louis  VI.  gave  them  were  assured  more  peace- 
able enjoyment  and  more  normal  development,  because  the 
directive  influence  of  the  monarchy  prevented  such  excesses  as 
occurred  at  Laon  or  Amiens.*. 

Although  no  exact  status  can  be  ascribed  to  the  communes 
of  the  reign  of  Louis,  although  they  were  still  involved  in  the 
meshes  of  feudalism,  yet  the  importance  of  his  reign  in  its  influ- 
ence upon  the  communes,  to  the  future  power  of  the  crown 
was  very  great.'     The  Tiers-Etat  was  yet  in  the  gristle;  but  by 

'Brussel,  I.,  182. 

*The  admirable  account  of  these  privileged  towns  by  M.  Luchaire  {Inst. 
Mon.,  II.,  144-157)  precludes  any  extended  discussion  here. 

3  Luchaire,  ^wMrt/ifj-,  Nos.  1 11,  303,  533,  596,  623.  These  acts  show  thas 
the  bourgeois  of  Paris  were  the  object  of  Louis  VI. 's  special  solicitude.  It  it 
significant  that  the  term  bourgeois  first  occurs  in  his  reign.  The  word  Burgenses 
is  found  six  times  in  an  ordonnatice  of  the  year  1134.  Brussel,  II.,  941  :  Ego 
Ludovicus  ....  notum  fieri  volumus  ....  quod  Burgensibus  nostris  Parisi- 
ensibus  universis  praecipimus  et  concedimus,  etc. — Brussel,  II.,  941. 

*  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  582. 

^  Ibid.,  No.  533.     This  was  granted  in  1 123,  and  revoked  for  cause  in  1 129. 

(No.  437)- 

^Ibid.,  No.  578. 

?  Ibid.,  No.  297. 

^Levasseur,  I.,  p.  186. 

9 "  In  France  the  kings  used  the  people  against  the  nobles  as  long  as  it 
suited  their  purpose  and  in  the  end  brought  nobles,  people  and  clergy  into  one 
common  bondage.  This  strengthening  of  the  power  of  the  French  king  within 
his  own  dominions  was  naturally  accompanied  by  increased  vigor  in  the  rela- 
tions of  the  crown  to  the  princes  who  owed  it  a  nominal  homage.  The  reign  of 
Louis  the  Fat  may  be  set  down  as  the  beginning  of  that  gradual  growth  of 
the  Parisian  monarchy  which  in  the  end  swallowed  up  all  the  states  which 
owed  it  homage,  besides  so  large  a  part  of  the  German  and  Burgundian  king- 
doms."— Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  V.,  179.  The  modest  beginnings  of  the 
grand  vassals  with  respect  to  the  communes,  precluded  any  exercise  of  the 
king's  authority  save   that   of  confirmation.     In  1 127  Louis  VI.  countersigned 


KING,  COMMUNES,  ROYALTY  AND  POPULAR  CLASSES,      qi 

an  early  appropriation  of  the  commune  as  an  instrument  of  crown 
power,  Louis  assured  to  the  monarchy  the  bone  and  sinew  of  suc- 
ceeding centuries.  In  after  years  it  was  largely  to  the  cities  that 
France  was  indebted  for  the  extension  of  her  territory.  Her 
geographic  changes  were  greatly  modified  by  the  revolutions  of 
the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.' 

the  charters  of  St.  Omer  and  Bruges,  in  Flanders  (Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  384) 
but  such  intervention  in  the  domain  of  a  grand  vassal  is  entirely  explained  by 
his  support  of  William  Clito  {Ibid.,  Introd.,  cxciii.). 
'  Pigeonneau,  I.,  177. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS. 

Foreign  relations  occupy  a  place  of  comparatively  slight  impor- 
tance  in  the  reign  of  Louis  VI.,  when  the  crown  was  strength- 
ening itself  intensively.  England,  Germany  and  the  Papacy  were 
the  three  powers  most  in  contact^withTFrance^at  this  time, 
but  the  relations  with  each  were  quite  different.  With  England 
the  relations  of  France  were  political,  and  the  point  of  contact, 
through  Normandy,  was  direct.  With  the  empire  and  the  pope 
her  relations  were  dynastic  and  ecclesiastical,  and  less  vitally 
connected. 

The  hostile  attitude  of  England,  when  the  French  crown  was 
fortifying  itself  intensively,  was  most  to  be  feared.  Henry  I. 
had  no  such  imperial  pretensions  as  Rufus  had  entertained.  His 
wars  were  wars,  not  of  annihilation,  as  his  brother's  had  been, 
but  of  limitation,'  and  in  ttt?  fact  that  his  schemes  were  so  feasible 
lay  the  danger  to  France.  The  question  of  the  Norman-French 
frontiers,  therefore,  becomes  of  greater  significance  than  the 
fighting  on  the  borders  would  at  first  betoken.''  As  the  sphere 
of  his  activity  enlarged  Louis  came  in  contact  with  a  coalition 
directed  by  the  English  king,  who  was  aided  ^ from  the  first  by 
the  powerful  house  of  Blois^  and  later  enlisted  the  services  of 
his  imperial  son-in-law,  Henry  V,  of  Germany,  in  his  behalf.* 

The  wars  between  the  two  monarchs  dragged  on,  with  inter- 
ruptions, over  a  series  of  years,  and  were  waged  with  varying 
success ;  but  throughout,  Louis  VL  never  lost  sight  of  the  idea 

'  Freeman,  N'orman  Conquest,  V.,  204-5. 

'"  Verum  quia  Normanorum  marchia,  tarn  regum  Anglorum  quam  Norman- 
orum  ducum  nobili  providentia  et  novorum  positione  castroum  et  invadaliuni  flu- 
minum  decursu  extra  alias  cingebatur,  rex,"  etc. — Suger,  86.     Cf.  6. 

3Suger,  66. 

t  Ibid.,  1 01-3.  • 

92 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  93 

that  the  kfi^  of. England  was  his  vassal.  Henry  I.  chafed  under 
the  rigid  enforcement  of  a  feudal  right  by  one  whom  he  deemed 
his  political  inferior'  especially  since  his  father  from  the  day  of 
the  Conquest  had  disregarded  the  bond,  and  even  Rufus  had 
regarded  Normandy  as  a  land  to  be  fought  for.^ 

The  pr^ext  of  the  first  war  (ii  i  i-ii  13  )  was  a  dispute  over 
the  border  fortress  of  Gisors,^  and  the  enmity  engendered 
between  Louis  VI.  and  Thibaud  of  Blois  over  the  erection  of  a 
castle."  But  back  of  all  was  the  never-ending  grudge  between 
the  duke  of  J^ormandy  and  the  king  of  France.  There  were 
military  operations  in  Brie  in  the  summer  of  mi,  during  the 
course  of  which  Robert  II.,  count  of  Flanders,  whom  Louis  had 
summoned  to  his  aid,  was  killed  by  a  fall  from  his  horse  near  the 
bridge  of  Meaux.^  In  the  spring  and  summer  of  the  next  year 
the  war  was  renewed  with  more  intensity.  Thibaud  during  the 
winter  had  succeeded  in  forming  a  feudal  coalition  against  the 
French  Icing,  comprising  Lancelin  de  Bulles,  seigneur  of  Dam- 
martin,  Paien  de  Montjai,  Ralph  of  Beaugerci,  Milon  de  Brai, 
viscount  of  Troyes,  the  notorious  Hugh  de  Creci,  lord  of  Chateau- 
fort,  Guy  II.  of  Rochefort,  and  Hugh,  count  of  Troyes.  The 
king  had  planned  a  trip  to  Flanders,  but  was  apprised  of  the 
danger,  while  at  Corbeil,  by  Suger,  then  episcopal  prevot  of 
Touri.  Near  Touri  the  royal  arms  were  defeated  by  the  allies, 
aided  by  the  arrival  of  some  Norman  knights.  Nothing  daunted, 
however,  Louis  at  once  retrieved  his  fortunes.  Taking  advan- 
tage of  the  separation  of  his  enemies,  he  shut  up  Hugh  in  le 
Puiset  by  fortifying  Janville,  over  against  it,  and  then,  sustained 

'Et  quoniam  "omnis  potestas  impatiens  consortis  erit"  rex  Francorum 
Ludovicus,  ea  qua  supereminebat  regi  Anglorum  ducique  Normanorum  Henrico 
sublimitate,  in  eum  semper  tanquam  in  feodatum  suum  efferebatur. — Suger,  85. 

*  Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  V.,  193. 
3  Suger,  48. 

*  Comes  Theobaldus  ....  machinebatur  marchiam  suam  amplificare 
castrum  erigendo  in  potestate  Puteoli  quod  de  feodo  regis  fuerat  ....  sub- 
verso  igitur  omino  prefato  castra Theobaldus  comes,  fretus  avunculi 

sui  regis  Anglici  incliti  Henrici  auxilio,  regi  Ludovico  cum  complicibus  suis 
guerram  movet." — Ibid.,  66. 

5  Luchaire,  Annales,  No  121. 


94  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

by  Ralph  of  Vermandois  and  Dreu  de  Mouchi,  he  fell  apon  Thi- 
baud,  who  was  glad  to  fall  back  upon  Chartres.  Hugh  and  his 
chatelain  then  surrendered  to  the  French  king  who  declared 
Hugh  deprived  of  his  hereditary  rights,  and  for  the  second  time 
destroyed  the  castle  of  le  Puiset.'  In  the  fall  (1112)  hostilities 
began  again.  Louis  was  aided  by  the  count  of  Anjou  and  some 
Norman  barons,  among  whom  were  Amauri  de  Montfort,  count 
of  Evreux,  William  Crispin  and  Robert  of  Bell^me,  the  last  of 
whom  Louis  sent  as  ambassador  to  the  English  king.  But 
Henry  thrust  him  into  prison  in  Cherbourg,  and  in  the  follow- 
ing year  he  was  carried  over  to  England.'  The  winter  of  1 1 12-3 
cooled  the  ardor  of  the  combatants.  In  March  the  two  kings 
held  a  conference  near  Gisors,  and  there  peace  was  made.  Louis 
renounced  in  favor  of  Henry  the  suzerainty  of  the  seigneury  of 
Belleme  as  well  as  his  claims  upon  the  counties  of  Maine  and 
Brittany.  The  French  barons  who  had  taken  part  against  their 
lord  gained  nothing  by  their  espousal  of  Henry's  cause,  for  the 
English  king  let  them  lie  at  the  mercy  of  their  overlord.^ 

In  the  interval  of  peace  Henry  I.  tried  to  force  the  Norman 
baronage  to  do  homage  to  the  Aetheling  William  (11 15).  The 
attempt  provoked  a  counter-movement  by  Louis  VI.  in  favor  of 
William  Clito,  Henry's  nephew  by  his  brother  Robert.  The 
French  king  meant  to  give  to  Normandy  a  master  who  would 
never  be  seated  upon  the  throne  of  England.'*  In  the  absence 
of  Henry  I.  from  Normandy,  the  duty  of  guarding  the  English 
interests  fell  upon  Thibaud.  Louis  had  made  an  alliance  with 
Foulque,  the  count  of  Anjou,  and  with  Baldwin  VII.,  the  new 
count  of  Flanders.  A  desultory  conflict  was  carried  on  through- 
out the  summer  and  autumn  of  11 16  in  the  Vexin,  Picardy  and 
in  the  vicinity  of  Chartres.^  In  the  next  summer,  however,  the 
French   king  and  the    count   of    Flanders    entered    Normandy. 

'Luchaire,  ^««a/i?j,  No.  134. 

'Ibid.,  Nos.  148,  149. 

^Ibid.,  No.  158. 

♦Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,  V.,  187. 

SLuchaire,  Annales,  No.  207. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  95 

But  the  danger  had  been  great  enough  to  call  Henry  from 
beyond  sea  and  the  French  host  had  to  retreat  before  the  army 
of  Henry,  composed  of  English,  Normans  and  Bretons  (summer 
of  1 1 1 7).'  During  the  winter  the  coalition  formed  by  the  French 
king  against  Henry  I.  was  augmented  by  the  addition  of  several 
of  the  Norman  baronage,  especially  of  Enguerran  de  Chaumont. 
Early  in  the  spring  of  11 18  the  united  forces  entered  the  Vexin, 
surprised  the  Chateau  de  Gasny  and  attacked  with  success  the  new 
fortress  Malassis,  both  of  which  fortresses  had  been  newly  erected 
by  the  English  king.  It  is  not  improbable,  even,  that  the  French 
forces  ravaged  Normandy  as  far  as  Rouen.' 

But  Louis  VI.  was  no  match  for  the  king  of  the  English. 
Even  in  force  of  arms  he  was  surpassed  by  Henry  I.  while  in 
diplomacy  and  intrigue  he  was  far  the  inferior  of  his  English 
rival,  as  the  result  of  Henry's  winter  machinations  proved  to 
him.  The  war  had  been  renevfed  as  usual  with  the  beginning  of 
spring  (11 19),^  but  Henry  was  in  no  hurry  to  begin  active  hostil- 
ities. While  Louis  occupied  himself  in  insignificant  sieges  along 
the  Andelle  and  Epte  rivers,  the  English  king  succeeded  in 
estranging  Louis' most  powerful  ally.  Foulque  (1109-1142)  of 
Anjou  was  lured  away  from  the  Side  of  the  French  king  by 
the  marriage  of  his  daughter  to  the  English  heir,  the  ^theling 
William,'*  thus  leaving  the  count  of  Flanders  the  only  staunch 
ally  upon  whom  Louis  could  depend. 

In  August  Louis  crossed  the  Andelle  river  and  entered  Nor- 
mandy. Henry  was  at  Noyon-sur-l'Andelle.  In  the  plain  of 
Bremule,  in  spite  of  the  efforts  of  Burchard  of  Montmorenci 
to  dissuade  the  French  king,  the  two  armies  met  in  combat 
(August   20,  1 1 19).     Th^battle  of  Bremule  was  a  complete  rout 

'  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  229. 

^Ibid.,  No.  233.     Suger,  86-9  and  Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  311,  differ  in  details. 

3  Ibid.,  Nos.  252,  257,  258. 

'*  Comes  etiam  Andegavensis  Fulco,  cum  et  proprio  hominio  et  multis 
sacramentis,  obsidum  etiam  muitiplicate  regi  Ludovico  confederatus  asset, 
avaritiam  fidelitate  preponens,  inconsulto  rege,  perfidia  mfamatus,  filiam  suam 
regis  Anglici  filio  Guilelmo  nuptui  tradidit. — Suger,  91.  See  Freeman,  Norman 
Conquest,  V.,  184. 


96  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

of  the  French  forces.'  In  bitter  shame  Louis  returned  to  Paris, 
where  Amauri  de  Montfort  revived  his  courage  by  advising  a 
general  muster  of  contingents  under  bishops,  counts  and  other 
lords.  The  fyrd  gathered  from  near  and  far.  Forces  came  from 
Bourgogne,  Berry  and  Auvergne  in  the  south,  from  Lille,  Tournai 
and  Arras  in  Flanders,  as  well  as  from  the  nearer  localities  of 
Senonais,  Laonnais,  Beauvaisis,  Vermandois,Etampes  and  Noyon." 
The  new  host  invaded  Normandy,  burned  Ivri  and  began  the 
siege  of  Breteuil.^  Ralph  the  Breton,  however,  succeeded  in 
holding  the  place  until  the  arrival  of  Henry  L  The  French 
king  then  turned  his  arms  against  the  count  of  Blois.  Owing, 
however,  to  the  intercession  of  the  chapter  of  Notre-Dame  de 
Chartres,  and  the  bourgeois,  Chartres  was  spared  from  flames,* 
and  Louis  dispersed  his  troops  in  order  to  meet  Pope  Calixtus  IL 
The  advantage  Louis  now  took  of  the  presence  of  Calixtus  in 
France  is  probably  the  least  commendable  event  of  his  reign. 
Nothing  short  of  a  moral  preponderance  could  remove  the  sting 
of  defeat  from  the  breast  of  the  French  king.  In  the  council  of 
Rheims  (October  20-30,  1119),  the  king  set  forth  in  detail  his 
complaint  against  Henry,  appearing  in  person  before  that  august 
body.  He  told  how  Henry  I.  had  seized  upon  his  fief  of  Nor- 
mandy and  deprived  its  lawful  duke  of  his  heritage ;  how  Henry 
had  imprisoned  his  own  nephew,  William  the  Clito,  and  his  ambas- 
sador, Robert  of  Belleme,  and  had  stirred  up  Count  Thibaud,  his 

'  In  quo  bello  fugit  ipse  rex  Ludovicus,  captique  sunt  ibi  pene  omnes  Fran- 
ciae  proceres  et  optimates. —  Ex  chron.  mortui-maris,  H.  F.,  XII.,  782.  The 
territorial  idea  in  the  word  "  Franciae  "  is  to  be  observed.  Suger  (90-1)  dis- 
guises the  true  nature  of  this  battle.  Cf.  Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  355-363  and  Luchaire, 
Annales,  Nos.  257,  258,  259,  260,  261,  262.  ^eeman  {Norman  Conquest,  V., 
186-190),  and  Norgate  (I.,  235-7)  have  each  a  good  account.  Velly  relates 
that  in  the  battle  of  Brdmule  an  English  knight  having  seized  the  bridle  of 
Louis'  horse,  cried  out,  "  The  king  is  taken  !"  Louis,  as  he  felled  the  boaster, 
rejoined,  "Do  you  not  know  that  in  the  game  of  chess  the  king  is  never 
taken?" — an  indication  of  his  spirit  if  not  his  good  judgment  on  that  occa- 
sion.— {Hist,  de  France,  IL,  14.     But  no  authorities  are  cited.) 

Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  364-5  ;  366-9  ;  Suger,  92. 
^Ibid.;  Chron.  MaUrin,  H.  F.,  XII.,  74. 
*  Ibid. 


FOREIGN  FOLIC  Y  AND  FOLIFICS.  97- 

vassal.  The  French  prelates  vouched  for  the  truth  of  their  king's 
accusations.  The  feeling  of  the  assembly  ran  so  high  that  Geof- 
frey, the  archbishop  of  Rouen,  who  rose  to  vindicate  his  lord, 
was  forced  to  desist.  But  Calixtus  was  not  to  be  duped ;  he 
would  be  arbiter,  but  not  a  cat's-paw.  Accordingly  he  tried  to 
satisfy  Louis  by  hurling  an  anathema  at  the  English  king's  impe- 
rial son-in-law  Henry  V.  a  proceeding  which  satisfied  the  pope 
far  more  than  the  French  king,  and  then  employed  himself  in 
making  terms  between  the  two  monarchs.'  Calixtus  met  Henry 
in  a  conference  at  Gisors  (22-27  Nov.).  As  a  result,  within  a  year, 
all  castles  and  prisoners  taken  by  either  side  were  restored,  and 
Louis  VI.  agreed  to  abandon  the  cause  of  the  Pretender,  Clito,  in 
return  for  which  concession,  Henry's  son,  the  Aetheling,  by  the 
father's  command,  again  did  homage  to  the  king  of  France,  his 
overlord.  This  fact  of  homage  is  remarkable,  as  there  is  no  record 
of  any  homage  done  by  either  William  Rufus  or  Henry." 

Within  a  year  the  loss  of  the  English  heir  in  the  White  Ship 
(11 20)  was  destined  to  precipitate  hostilities  once  more.  On  the 
failure  of  the  English  male  line,  Louis  saw  an  opportunity  more 
favorable  than  before,  of  giving  to  Normandy  a  duke  who  would 

'  For  the  details  of  the  Council  of  Rheims,  see  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  266. 
Ord.  Vit.,  IV.,  372-393,  and  Guil.  de  Nangis,  10  {Societe  de  V Hist,  de  France). 
Suger,  94,  differs  in  his  account  of  Louis  VI.  from  Ord  Vit.  The  text  follows 
the  latter.  Freeman  {No7'i>ian  Conquest,  V.,  190-2)  has  a  vivid  account.  The 
importance  of  the  council  of  Rheims  lies  in  the  fact  the  pope  has  become  the  court 
of  last  resort  for  kings. 

2  Freeman,  Norman  Conquest,^.  193.  For  details  see  Ord.  Vit.,  IV., 
398-406.  Luchaire,  Annates,  Nos.  267,  298.  Freeman  has  missed  the  fact  that 
Henry  I.'s  son  did  homage  to  Louis  VI.  at  the  end  of  the  first  war.  "  Cum 
autem  Guilelmus  regis  angjici  filius,  regi  Ludovico  hominium  suum  fecisset,"etc. 
— Suger,  52.  The  homage  of  Henry  I.'s  son  is  found  in  Will.  Malms.  V.  405: — 
Ordinibat  (Henricus)  .  .  .  .  ut  hominium  quod  ipse  pro  culmine  imperii  fas- 
tideret  facere,  filius  delicatus  et  qui  putabatur  viam  sseculi  ingressurus  non 
recusaret.  A  fuller  account  is  in  H.  F.,  XIV.,  16.  Ex  Anonymi  Blandinensis 
appendicula  ad  Sigbertum : — Ludovicus  rex  Francorum  contra  regem  AnglijE 
vadit,  et  usque  Rotomagum  omnia  vastat,  tandem  conventum  fuit  ut  Willelmus 
filius  Henrici  Regis  Anglorum  Normannian  teneret  de  rege  Francise,  et  hom- 
magium  sibi  faceret,  sicut  Rollo  primus  Normannise  Dux  jure  perpetuo 
promiserat. 


■98  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

never  be  king  of  England.'  He  had  a  ready  ally  inFoulque,  who 
had  returned  from  Jerusalem  and  demanded  the  dowry  of  his 
daughter,  the  widow  of  the  ill-starred  Aetheling.  But  Henry  I. 
was  able  to  stir  up  a  formidable  adversary  against  the  French 
king,  and  for  the  first  time  since  the  days  of  the  Ottos,  France 
and  the  Empire  came  into  actual  contact.  England  and  the 
Empire  had  a  common  bond  in  that  Henry  V.,  the  emperor, 
had  married  Matilda,  daughter  of  the  English  king.  It  was 
Henry  V.,  the  German  emperor,  whom  Henry  I.  now  stirred 
up  against  his  foe.''  The  war  which  hitherto  had  been  of 
feudal  character,  now  becomes  a  triangular  conflict  of  inter- 
national importance. 3  The  new  adversary  was  enough  to  tax  the 
prowess  of  a  greater  king  than  Louis  VI.  The  most  intense  form 
of  common  interest  is  common  danger,  and  the  greatest  danger 
of  a  people  has  always  been  war.  The  unanimity  with  which  the 
vassals  responded  to  the  king's  call,  and  the  extent  of  the  sum- 
mons, indicates  a  fervor  appi^oaching  a  national  manifestation. 
There  is  evidence  of  latent  nationality  in  the  fact  that  barons 
who  resisted  the  crown  and  struggled  for  petty  independence  at 
home,  now,  when  exterior  danger  threatened,  stood  by  the  king 
in  common  cause.*  The  muster  rolP  included  all  in  the  imme- 
diate realm,  a  levee  en  masse,  besides  the  feudal  contingents  of  the 

'Although  the  participation  of  Louis  VI.,  in  the  plans  of  William  Clito  and 
Foulque  of  Anjou  is  not  formally  indicated,  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  favored 
them.     See  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  334. 

^  England  appears  upon  the  general  scene  of  European   politics  as  the 

enemy  of  France  and  the  ally  of  Germany When  the  two   Henrys  are 

joined  together  against  the  Parisian  king,  we  have  the  very  state  of  things 
which  Europe  has  since  seen  so  many  times  repeated,  from  the  day  of  English 
overthrow  at  Bouvines  to  the  day  of  victory  at  Waterloo. — Freeman,  Norman 
Conquest,  V.,  197. 

3  We  now  get  evidence  of  a  national  antagonism  between  the  two  realms. 
Thus  Ekkehard  {Mon.  Germ.  Hist.,  VI.,  262)  says  —  "Teutonici  non  facile 
gentes  impugnant  exteras."  And  Suger  (102)  puts  these  words  in  the  mouth  of 
Louis  VI. :  "  Transeamus  audacter  ad  eos,  ne  redeuntes  impune  ferant,  quod 
in  terrarum  dominam  Franciam  superbe  presumpserunt,"  Cf.  p.  30,  where  he 
speaks  of  "furor  Theutonicus." 

*  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  274  ;  Daniel,  I.,  357. 

s"Rex  ....  ut  eum  tota  Francia  sequatur  potenterinvitat." — Suger.  102. 
Suger's  numbers,  though,  certainly  are  exaggerated.    See  Vuitry,  I.,  376,  note. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  99 

Duke  of  Bourgogne,  William  VII,  Duke  of  Aquitaine,  and  the 
Counts  of  Flanders,  Champagne,  Vermandois.  Conan'III.  of 
Brittany,  Charles  the  Good  of  Flanders,  and  Count  Foulque, 
were  late  in  coming,  however,  "because  the  length  of  the  road 
and  the  brief  time  prevented."  '  The  immediate  object  of  the 
imperial  attack  was  Rheims,^  whence  the  papal  anathema  had 
been  launched,  but  ere  the  imperial  army  had  gone  further  than 
Champagne,  the  emperor  had  to  return,^  and  the  death  in  the  next 
year  of  the  last  emperor  of  the  Franconian  house,  removed  all 
danger  from  the  East.  Meanwhile  the  Norman  rebels  had  been 
crushed  by  Henry  I.  at  Bourgtheroulde,  and  the  silken  oriflamme 
which  Louis  VI.  had  snatched  from  the  altar  of  St.  Denis,"  destined 

'  See  Suger's  account,  pp.  103-4.  Of  the  last  three  he  says  "quod  .... 
vie  prolixitas  et  temporis  brevitas  prohiberet."  A  manuscript  in  the  Biblio- 
th^que  nationale,  recently  published  by  M.  Paul  Viollet  ( Une  grand  chronique 
de  Saint  Denis.  Observations  pour  servir  a  Vhistoire  critique  des  Oeuvres  de 
Suger,  Bib.  de  VEcole  des  Chartes,  xxxiv.,  1873,  p.  244)  interestingly  shows 
how  opinion  was  divided  as  to  the  manner  of  meeting  the  imperial  army : — 
"  Inquit  (Louis  VI.)  quid  inde  agendum  esset.  Ibi  dum  varie  varii  opinarentur  et 
aliqui  hostes  dignum  ducerent  preestotari,  dicentes  eos  in  regni  medio  facilius 
expugnandos,  alii  villas  regni  murari,  et  oppida  pugilibus  muniri  dignum  duce- 
rent, rex  Teutonicam  rapacitatem  abhorrens,  et  damnum-  irreparabile  si  permit- 
terrentur  ingredi  spatiumque  deesset  muniendi  civitates  et  oppida  :  "  Non  sic," 
inquit,  "  sed  delectum  militum  sine  mora  colligendum  censeo  et  in  extremo  ter- 
mino  regni  nostro  loco  mari  validissimi  adversarios  expectare  pede  fixo."  On 
this  levy  see  Boutaric,  255  ff.  On  the  participation  of  the  Duke  of  Bourgogne, 
see  Ernest  Petit,  Hist,  des  Dues  de  Bourgogne,  I.,  337-8.  Inasmuch  as  the 
Count  of  Handers  was  vassal  of  the  emperor,  also,  it  is  not  unreasonable  to 
believe  the  "  delay  "  of  Charles  was  premeditated. 

*  Suger,  loi ;  Annul.  S.  Bened.,  VI*  113. 

3  The  reason  for  this  sudden  retreat  is  involved  in  obscurity.  The  most 
probable  cause  is  that  of  a  popular  uprising  in  Worms.  (Ekkehard,  Mon 
Germ.  Hist.,  SS.,  VI.,  262-3.)  Suger  (105-6)  is  too  gleeful  to  be  reliable.  On 
the  election  of  Lothar  of  Saxony  and  its  effect  on  France,  see  this  dissertation, 
P-53- 

<  Suger,  102  ;  Tardif,  No.  391.  The  oriflamme  was  a  red  silk  banner, 
three-pointed,  tipped  with  green  and  hung  upon  a  gilt  spear.  Originally  the 
banner  of  the  Count  of  the  Vexin  (Tardif,  No.  391),  when  that  county  fell  to  the 
king  (1107)  the  oriflamme  became  the  national  ensign.  See  DuCange,  Dissert., 
XVII.,  Oeuvres  de  Suger  (Soc.  de  VHist.  de  France),  442-3.  Daniel,  I.  358.  An 
ancient  description  of  the  oriflamme  is  in  Guillaume  le  Breton,  Book  XI.,  32-9. 


loo  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

from  that  day  forth  to  be  the  national  banner  of  France,  drooped 
on  its  standard.' 

In  the  next  few  years  the  widowed  empress  married  Geoffrey, 
son  of  Foulque  the  Black  of  Anjou,  (1128)  and  the  luckless  Clito 
was  consoled  with  the  hand  of  Adeliza,  half-sister  of  Louis' 
queen,  and  a  grant  of  the  French  Vexin  (1127).^ 

But  peace  again  was  of  short  duration.  This  time,  however, 
the  war  was  not  of  Louis'  choosing;  Henry  L  was  the  aggressor. 
The  occasion  was  one  of  the  accidents  of  history, —  the  murder  of 
Charles  the  Good  of  Flanders.  Probably  no  single  event  from 
the  capture  of  Jerusalem  to  the  fall  of  Edessa  so  startled  Europe 
as  the  murder  of  the"  Count  of  Flanders  on  the  very  steps  of  the 
altar  of  the  church    of  St.  Donatien,  in  Bruges  (March  2,  11 27). 

From  the  beginning  of  the  twelfth  century,  the  counts  of 
Flanders  had  been  on  good  terms  with  their  French  suzerain.^ 
In  the  wars  with  Henry  I.,  Baldwin  VII.  had  sustained  the  crown 
of  France  until  his  death,  in  1119.''  He  left  his  title  to  his 
nephew  Charles,  surnamed  the  Good.^  Charles  held  to  a  neutral 
course  in  the  wars  between  'the  kings  of  France  and  England, 
though  he  did  not  fail  in  loyalty  to  Louis  le  Gros.*  The  good 
reputation  of  Charles  soon  won  him  the  respect  of  Europe. 
In  1 1 23  he  declined  an  offer  of  the  crown  of  Jerusalem,  because 

It  was  at  this  time  that  Louis  VI.  enunciated  the  principle  that  the  king  could 
do  homage  to  none.     See  this  dissertation,  p.  44. 

'  On  the  third  war  between  Louis  VI.  and  Henry  I.,  see  Norman  Conquest, 
v.,  196-9. 

^Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  378. 

3  For  the  early  relations  of  Flanders  and  France,  see  Pfister,  Le  Rigne  de 
Robert  le  Pieux,  218-224. 

"Ord.  Vit..  IV.,  316;  Herman  de  Tournai,  Man.  Germ.  Hist.  SS.  XIV., 
284. 

sGalbert  de  Bruges,  3,  and  notes  I  and  3.  Galbert  calls  him  (p.  9)  "Cath- 
olicus,  bonus,  religiosus,  cultor  Dei  hominumque  rector  providus."  See  his 
eulogy,  6.  Charles  the  Good  was  son  of  Canute  IV.  of  Denmark  and  of 
Adela,  daughter  of  the  former  Count  of  Flanders,  Robert  the  Frison.  Baldwin 
VII.  was  a  grandson  of  the  last  and  succeeded  his  father,  Robert  I.,  in  iiii. 
Charles  was  also  cousin  of  Louis  VI.  by  marriage. — Galbert  de  Bruges,  75,  note  7. 

*  William  Malms.,  III.,  257.  He  was  in  the  army  against  Henry  V.  and 
also  took  part  in  the  expedition  into  Auvergne. — Suger,  103,  108. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  lOl 

he  would  not  desert  his  fatherland  ; '  and  two  years  afterwards 
the  princes  of  the  Empire  offered  him,  in  vain,  the  imperial 
scepter.'' 

On  March  2,  11 27,  the  Count  of  Flanders  was  murdered  at 
the  instigation  of  Bertulf,  the  prevot  of  Bruges,  because  the  count 
had  discovered,  in  a  judicial  duel,  his  servile  origin,  which  wealth 
and  power  had  hitherto  obscured.  The  news  of  the  murder  ran 
like  wildfire  though  Europe.^  Flanders  was  in  a  tumult.  For 
seven  days  riot  raged  through  the  streets  of  Bruges.  There  were 
traitors  among  the  people  ;  neither  life  nor  property  was  safe.  At 
last  the  dead  count's  chamberlain,  Gervais,  succeeded  in  organ- 

'  Galbert  de  Bruges,  c.  5. 

^Ibid.,  c.  4.  But  see  Giesebrecht,  IV,,  417,  who  thinks  the  movement  not 
so  spontaneous   as  Galbert's  account  indicates,    fyi  Ottoof  Friesing,  VII.,  17. 

3  This  is  no  exaggeration.  "  Cum  tam  gloriosi  principis  martirium  vita 
suscepisset,  terrarum  universi  habitatores  infamia  traditionis  ipsius  perculsi, 
nimis  indoluerunt,  et  mirabile  dictu,  occiso  consule  in  castro  Brugensi,  in  mane 
unius  diei,  scilicet  feriae  quartae,  fama  impiae  mortis  ejus  in  Londonia  civitate, 
quae  est  in  Anglia  terra,  secundo  die  postea  circa  primam  diei  perculit  cives,  et 
circa  vesperam  ejusdem  secundae  diei  Londunenses  turbavit,  qui  in  Francia  a 
nobis  longe  remoti  sunt;  sicut  didicimus  per  scholares  nostros,  qui  eodem 
tempore  Londuni  studuerunt,  sic  etiam  per  negotiotores  nostros  intelleximus, 
qui  eodem  die  Londoniae  mercaturae  intenti  fuere.  Intervalla  ergo  vel  tempo 
rum  vel  locorum  predictorum  nee  equo  nee  navigio  quispiam  transisse  tam 
velociter  poterat." — Galbert  de  Bruges,  22.  Cf.  Robert  de  Torigni,  i^(?«.  Germ. 
Hist.  SS.,  VI.,  488.  An  account  of  the  judicial  duel,  the  plot  of  Bertulf  and 
his  nephews,  and  a  detailed  relation  of  the  murder  of  Charles  the  Good  will 
be  found  in  Galbert  de  Bruges,  cc.  7-15. 

The  following  note  of  M.  Pirenne  (Edition  of  Galbert  de  Bruges,  75,  note 
7),  I  quote  entire;  it  explains  itself :  "On  ne  peut  admettre  avec  M.  Molinier 
(ed.  de  Suger,  p.  iii,  n.  2)  que  Louis  VI.  ait  €i€  de  connivance  avec  les  assas- 
sins de  Charles ;  sa  conduite  prouve  pr^cisement  le  contraire.  D'aileurs  il  est 
inexact  que  Charles  fiit  allie  au  roi  d'Angleterre  depuis  plusieurs  annees  deja  en 
1 127.  En  1126,  il  avait  pris  part  avec  un  contingent  de  troups  a  I'expedition 
du  roi  de  France  en  Auvergne  (Suger,  pp.  108-110).  II  est  vrai  que  Charles 
abandonna  la  politique  systematiquement  hostile  de  Baudoin  VI.  vis  a  vis  de 
I'Angleterre ;  mais  cette  conduite  prudente  et  d'accord  avec  les  interests  de  la 
Flandre  (See  Norman  Conquest,  V.,  187, — J.  W.  T.)  ne  peut  avoir  poussd 
Louis  VI.  k  tremper  dans  le  crime  de  Bertulf  et  de  ses  neveux.  Un  poeme 
anonyme  sur  la  mort  de  Charles  (De  Smet,  Corp.  Chron.  Plunder.,  I.,  p.  79) 
commence  par  les  mots  :  ^Anglia  ridet,  Francia  luget,  Flandria  languet.'' " 


t02  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

izing  the  popular  fury.  The  murderers  and  their  accomplices 
shut  themselves  up  in  the  burgh'  of  the  town  (March  9,  1127.) 
A  regular  siege  was  now  began.  The  men  of  Bruges  were  rein- 
forced by  those  of  Ghent  bringing  arms  and  instruments  of  siege.' 
For  ten  days  it  was  prolonged.  Then  the  court  yard  of  the 
castle  was  forced  and  the  imprisoned  conspirators  retreated  to  the 
church  (March  19).  Thence  they  were  driven  by  the  maddened 
populace  to  seek  cover  in  the  tower.  The  sacred  character  of 
the  edifice  did  not  protect  it.  Not  a  shred  of  the  interior  furni- 
ture remained.  In  the  meanwhile  Louis  VI.  had  arrived  at  Arras,^ 
(March  8,  about)  whence  he  sent  greeting  to  the  princes  and 
barons  of  the  siege,  assuring  them  that  he  would  come  as  soon  as 
a  new  count  was  elected."  This  was  imperative,  not  o.nly  for  the 
peace  of  Flanders,  but  in  order  to  avoid  complications  of  a  graver 
sort.  The  chief  competitors  were  Thierry  of  Elsass^  and  William 
of  Normandy,*  the  Clito.  But  a  swarm  of  other  candidates  arose, 
among  whom  were  Thierry'  Count  of  Holland,  Arnold,^  nephew 
of  Charles  the  Good,  and  Baldwin  IV.,'  Count  of  Hainaut. 

'  It  is  indispensable  to  understand  the  topography  of  the  burgh.  It  was 
protected  by  a  moat  over  which  were  four  bridges.  The  walls  were  nearly 
sixty  feet  high  and  were  flanked  with  towers.  In  the  interior  were  various 
structures  disposed  about  the  court.  These  were  the  church  of  Saint  Donatien; 
the  house  of  the  count,  which  was  connected  by  a  gallery  with  the  church  ;  the 
school,  the  cloister,  the  refectory  of  the  monks,  and  the  house  of  the  canonical 
prevot.  See  Galbert  *de  Bruges,  pp.  20,  note  3  ;  49,  note  ;  and  the  map  oppo- 
site p.  I. 

^Ibid.,c.  d,o.  z  Ibid.,  c.  i,'] .  ^ Ibid. 

s  He  was  cousin  of  Charles  the  Good  and  descended  through  the  female 
line  from  Robert  the  Prison  (1071-1093).  See  Galbert  de  Bruges,  3,  note  3; 
76,  note  4,  5. 

*  The  grandson  of  the  Conqueror  was  a  distant  cousin  of  Charles  the  Good. 
— Ibid.,  82,  note  2. 

7  Thierry  of  Holland  had  least  to  claim  to  the  succession.  See  the  claim. 
Ibid.  56,  note  5. 

^By  Charles'  sister  Ingertha.— /iJzfl'.,  138,  note  2. 

9  Grandson  of  Baldwin  VI.  Count  of  Flanders  (1067-1070)  and  brother  of 
Count  Robert  the  Prison,  who  violently  deprived  his  nephews  of  their  rights. 
In  the  assembly  at  Arras,  Baldwin  asserted  a  claim  founded  on  these  events. — 
Ibid.,  108,  note  li.  Freeman  {Norman  Conquest,  V.,  206)  says  that  Henry  I. 
of  England  was  a  candidate.     He  is  surely  in  error. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  103 

Legitimacy  pointed  to  Thierry  of  Elsass'  or  Baldwin  of 
Hainaut.'  Arnold  was  strong  only  in  that  the  hearts  of 
the  bourgeois  of  Bruges  were  with  him,3  while  the  Count  of 
Holland  was  a  shallow  pretender.  The  issue  really  was  a  contest 
between  the  king  of  England  and  Louis  VL  of  France  for  control 
of  the  election.  William  of  Normandy  was  a  deadly  enemy  of 
his  uncle  ;  hence  Louis  VL  sought  to  promote  an  anti-Anglican 
alliance  by  securing  him  the  countship  of  Flanders.'*  It  was  no 
less  the  interest  of  Henry  L  to  foil  such  a  move.  Neither  Thierry 
of  Elsass  nor  Arnold  could  be  dangerous.^  The  French  king, 
however,  had  the  advantage  of  being  on  the  ground.  In  the 
meeting  at  Arras,  whither  Thierry  of  Elsass  had  sent  his  petition 
for  election,  he  practically  forced  the  election  of  his  proteg^ 
(March  23)  upon  the  nobles  of  Flanders.*  Baldwin  of  Hainaut 
quitted  the  assembly  in  a  rage,  and  at  once  formed  a  coalition^  in 
favor  of  Henry  L  against  the  French  king,  which  comprised 
Stephen  of  Blois,  the  duke  of  Louvain,  Thomas  de  Couci,  and 
William  ofYpres.^ 

Meanwhile  William  Clito's  election  had  been  ratified  by  the 

'Galbert  de  Bruges,  108.  Cf.  Giry,  Hist,  de  la  Ville  de  Saint^Omer,  I.,  47 
and  note  2. 

2  Ibid.,  supra. 

3  Galbert  de  Bruges,  108. 

^Ibid.,  82,  note  2;  Suger,  I12,  note  4. 

5  Galbert  de  Bruges,  147,  note  2.     Ibid.,  76. 

*See  Galbert's  account  (c.  52)  of  this  meeting  of  the  "principes  Franciae 
et  primi  terrae  Flandriarum."  The  whole  account  is  a  graphic  picture  of  feudal 
manners,  as  many  another  touch  of  Galbert's  is.  [Cf.  c.  56  and  Waitz,  VII., 
51  ff.).  The  French  policy  is  clearly  set  forth.  It  is  worth  noticing  that  the 
territorial  character  of  France  comes  out  and  that  Louis  le  Gros  is  "Franciae 
imperator."     See  this  dissertation,  p.  109. 

7  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  379,  c. 

^William  of  Ypres  was  a  veritable  condottiere  of  the  twelfth  century.  He 
was  a  natural  son  of  Philip  de  Loo,  son  of  Robert  the  Prison.  He  was  hated 
by  the  Flemings  for  his  cruelty.  He  organized  a  hireling  troop  under  the  name 
of  Braban9ons,  and  was  in  the  service  of  Henry  I.  After  Henry's  death  (113S), 
Stephen  used  him  to  promote  the  anarchy  of  his  reign,  and  rewarded  him  with 
the  county  of  Kent.  In  11 55,  Henry  II.  expelled  him  from  England.  He 
died  ten  years  later  in  his  native  country.  See  Galbert  de  Bruges,  passim; 
especially  pp.  35,  note  2.  55  and  note  4;  57  and  note  i ;   146,  note  3.     There 


I04  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

burghers  of  Bruges  (April  2)/  and  despite  his  unpopularity  he 
had  received  the  homage^  of  the  dead  count's  vassals  (April  6). 
The  new  count  sought  to  win  the  good  will  of  all.  To  the  clergy 
he  granted  immunities ;  to  the  noblesse  he  abandoned  the  con- 
fiscated goods  of  the  assassins  and  purchased  the  grace  of  the 
bourgeois  of  Bruges  by  a  grant  of  privileges ^  (April  6),  which 
Louis  VI.  confirmed  a  week  later  (April  14).  To  St.  Omer  he 
also  granted  a  charter." 

In  the  interval  the  crowd,  holding  at  bay  the  band  in  the 
tower  of  St.  Donatien,  had  been  resting  on  their  arms.  At  last 
on  April  12  the  king  and  Count  William  began  an  attack  upon 
the  tower.  The  besieged  retreated  to  the  top,^  where  for  six  days 
they  successfully  withstood  every  assault.  Then  Louis  gave 
orders  to  sap  the  tower  (April  18).  The  captives  who  had  held 
out  for  forty-one  days  in  all,  now  abandoned  hope  ;  the  foulness 
of  their  quarters,  which  were  too  narrow  to  allow  all  to  recline  at 
once,  added  to  hunger  and  thirst,  made  them  succumb  (April  19). 
One  by  one  they  crawled  through  a  window  and  descended  by  a 
rope.*  But  their  sufferings  were  by  no  means  at  an  end.  Pend- 
ing the  funeral  of  Charles  the  Good,'  which  took  place  on  April 
22,  they  were  thrust  into  the  dungeons  of  the  castle.^  There 
they  lingered  in  the  darkness,  dampness  and  stench  for  over  two 
weeks.  In  the  interval,  Louis  and  Count  William  had  been 
called  to  Ypres  and  thence  to  Oudenarde,  on  account  of  trouble 

is  a  memoir  by  De  Smet. — Notice  sur  Guillautne  ef  Ypres  et  les  Cotnpagnies 
/ranches  du  Brabant  et  de  laFlandre  au  Moyen-age.  {Mem.  Acad.  Belg.,  t.  XV.). 
On  the  employment  of  mercenary  troops  consult  Boutaric,  240-2  ;  Bibliothique 
der&cole  de  Charles,  III.,  p.  123,  417;  Giraud,  Les  roturiers  au  XLL^  slide. 
Ibid.,  1 84 1-2. 

'Galbert  de  Bruges,  c.  54.  Cf.  Revue  d'Histoire  et  d'Archeo/ogie,  Brux- 
elles,  i860,  p.  113  ff. 

''Ibid.,  c.  56.  Cf.  Waitz,  VII.,  51  ff.  Galbert's  account  is  the  fullest  pre- 
sentation of  this  feudal  ceremony  extant. 

See  abstract  in  Luchaire,  Annates,  No.  382. 

^  Ibid.,  55.  The  text  of  the  charter  is  in  Giry,  Hist,  de  St.  Omer,  ^2  ff. 
Luchaire,  Annales,  384,  has  an  abstract  of  it. 

5  Galbert  de  Bruges,  c.  Ixiv. 

"See  details,  Galbert  de  Bruges,  cc.  73-5;  Suger,  112. 

T  Ibid.,  c.  lb.  ^  Ibid. ,<:.-] a,. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  105 

created  by  William  of  Ypres,  who  was  apprehended  and  impris- 
oned in  Lille.  They  did  not  return  until  May  4  to  Bruges.^ 
Then  followed  an  act  on  the  part  of  William,  and  sustained  by 
Louis  VL  which  ultimately  cost  the  count-regnant  his  title  and 
destroyed  for  France  the  balance  she  had  secured  in  Flanders, 
against  England.  The  defenders  of  the  tower  were  condemned 
without  form  or  process,  practically  by  m.artial  law,  and  hurled 
one  after  another,  eight  and  twenty  in  all,  from  the  coping  of 
the  tower  which  had  for  so  Igng  been  their  prison-house  (May 
5).^  On  the  day  following  Louis  VL  quitted  Flanders  for 
France. 

An  investigation  of  the  conspiracy  against  Charles  and  an 
attempt  to  apprehend  the  parties  guilty  of  plundering  the 
palace,  followed  this  summary  execution.  William's  conduct 
was  a  grave  political  blunder.  The  whole  affair  was  an  assertion 
of  martial  law,  and  on  the  lines  upon  which  it  was  carried  out, 
was  an  usurpation  of  the  jurisdiction  of  the  local  echevinage, 
and  alienated  a  class  powerful  by  virtue  of  wealth,  position 
and  long-acquired  authority.  Moreover,  it  was  a  direct  viola- 
tion of  a  privilege  he  had  himself  so  shortly  before  accorded 
the  men  of  Bruges.^  This  state  of  feeling  was  aggravated 
still  more  by  an  effort  on  his  part  to  exact  the  tonlieu  of  the 
burghers'*  which  excited  popular  antagonism,  culminating  in 
the  r^evolt   of  Lille  followed  by   other  towns   in   Flanders,  and 

'Galbert  de  Bruges,  cc.  78-9;  Suger,  113-4. 

''Ibid.,  c.  81,  and  p.  125,  note  2. 

'i  Ibid.,  cc.  Ixxxvii.-viii.  and  notes.  The  charter  given  to  St.  Omer  (Ait.  I.) 
recognizes  this  local  jurisdiction ;  it  is  by  inference,  however,  that  the  priv- 
ilege is  extended  to  Bruges. — Ibid.,  p.  96,  note. 

^ Ibid.,  c.  88.  "Dans  I'affaire  du  tonlieu  de  Bruges,  Guillaume  de 
Normandie  devait  n^cessairement  se  prononceren  faveur  dela  noblesse.  Ayant 
avant  tout  besoin  de  soldats  pour  rdsister  aux  adversaires  que  lui  suscitait  la 
politique  anglaise,  il  ne  pouvait  mdconter  les  chevaliers.  Les  n^cessitds  poli- 
tiques  le  forcferent  done,  comme  un  peu  plus  tard  les  empereurs  de  la  maison  de 
Hohenstaufen  en  AUemagne,  a  agir  centre  les  villes  pour  conserver  I'appui  de 
la  noblesse.  Guillaume  n'avait  d'ailleurs  abandonnd  le  tonlieu  aux  Brugeois 
que  pour  assurer  son  Election.  Mais  en  r^alitd  cette  concession  ^tait  exorbitante. 
Apr^s  la  mort  de  Guillaume,  Thierry  d'AIsace  se  garda  de  la  renouveler." — M. 
Pirenne,  in  Galbert  de  Bruges,  p.  132,  note  5. 


io6  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

the  expulsion  of  William.'  The  repose  following  his  accession 
had  been  momentary.  The  misconduct  of  the  new  count  and 
the  intrigues  of  the  king  of  England,  who  still  plotted  for 
Thierry  of  Elsass  once  more  made  Flanders  the  theatre  of  fierce 
turmoil.  Thierry  of  Elsass  reappeared  in  Bruges  and  was  elected 
count  of  Flanders  by  the  burghers  of  Bruges  and  Ghent  (March 
30,  1 1 28).''  Again  an  assembly  vvas  convoked  at  Arras,  but  the 
sturdy  burghers  refused  to  go  (April  lo).^  Again  Louis  VI.  and 
the  English  king  were  at  swords'  points.  Once  more  Flanders 
was  torn  by  civil  war.  The  Clito  returned  from  the  siege  of 
Bruges  (May  29).''  Louis  was  defeated  under  the  walls  of  Lille 
(May  21)  and  forced  to  fall  back  upon  France  which  Henry  I. 
was  invading 5  (June-July),  when  under  the  walls  of  Alost  (July 
27)  death  ended  the  career  of  William  Clito,  the  man  whom  for- 

'  Galbert  de  Bruges,  cc.  93-8. 

''Ibid.,  cc.  102. 

3  Their  response  is  an  amazing  declaration  of  independence.  One  under- 
stands in  reading  their  rejoinder  whence  the  spirit  came  of  the  men  who  wres- 
tled upon  the  dikes  of  Holland  against  the  thraldom  of  Spain  and  fought  in  the 
trenches  with  Mauriceof  Nassau  :  Notum  igiturfacimusuniversis,  tarn  regiquam 
ipsius  principibus,  simulque  presentibus  et  successoribus  nostris,  quod  nihil  per- 
tinet  ad  regem  Franciae  de  electione  vel  positione  comitis  Flandriae  si  sine 
herede  aut  cum  herede  obiisset.  Terrae  compares  et  cives  proximum  comitatus 
heredem  eligendi  habent  potestatem,  et  in  ipso  comitatu  sublimandi  possident 
libertatem.  Pro  jure  ergo  terrarum,  quas  in  feodum  tenuerit  a  rege,  cum 
obierit  consul,  pro  eodem  feodo  dabit  successor  comitis  armaturam  tantum- 
modo  regi.  Nihil  ulterius  debet  consul  terrae  Flandriae  regi  Franciae,  neque 
rex  habet  rationem  aliquam,  ut  potestative  seu  per  coemptionem  seu  per  pre- 
tium  nobis  superponat  consulem,  aut  aliquem  preferat.  Sed  quia  rex  et  comites 
Flandriae  cognationis  natura  hactenus  conjuncti  stabant,  eo  respectu  milites  et 
prdteres  et  cives  Flandriae  assensum  regi  prebuerant  de  eligendo  et  ponendo 
illo  Willelmo  sibi  in  consulem.  Sed  aliud  est  prorsus  quod  ex  cognatione 
debetur,  aliud  vero  quod  antiqua  predecessorum  Flandriae  consulum  traditione 
ac  justitia  examinatur  instituta. — Galbert  de  Bruges,  chap.  cvi.  But  consult 
the  editor's  commentary,  note.  M.  Luchaire  {Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  24-25)  says  of 
this  that,  "  La  royaut^  recevait  ainsi  une  veritable  le9on  de  droit  f^odal."  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  more  than  this.  It  implies  a  quasi  self-consciousness, 
an  idea  of  the  unity  of  one  people  of  one  blood  under  one  government,  and 
that  to  be  their  own. 

^  Ibid.,  c.  112. 

s  Henry  of  Huntingdon,  p.  247. 


FOREIGN  FOLIC  Y  AND  POLITICS.  i  o  7 

tune  had  never  favored.'  Thierry  of  Elsass,  whose  popularity 
already  had  installed  him  in  the  popular  heart,  by  the  mutual 
consent  of  Henry  I.  and  Louis  VI.  was  invested  with  the  title  of 
Count  of  Flanders^  and  regranted^  the  concessions  made  by  the 
grandson  of  the  Conqueror."  It  was  not  even  a  Pyrrhic  victory 
for  the  French  king;S  he  had  been  checkmated  in  every  move  by 
his  astute  English  rival.*  Only  one  thing  was  secured  —  the 
boon  of  peace.^ 

-  The  territorial  aggrandizement  of  France  during  the  reign  of 
Louis  VI.  was  insignificant  until  his  last  year.  He  saw  rightly 
that  the  extension  of  sovereignty  depended  upon  the  means  of 
exercising  that  sovereignty;^  therefore,  with  the  melancholy 
exception   of  Flanders,'  he   limited  his   activity  to  the  field  in 

'On  the  death  of  William  Clito,  see  Galbert  de  Bruges,  c.  cxix. 

^Ibid.,  c.  102. 

3  Ibid.,  c.  122. 

^  There  is  a  good  account  of  this  episode  in  Giry,  Hist,  de  la  Ville  de  Saint 
Omei;  1.,  c.  vi.,  sees.  1-4. 

5  Thierry  did  not  do  homage  to  Louis  VI.  according  to  Ord.  Vit.,  XII.,  45, 
until  1 132.  It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  the  speech  of  the  burghers  of  Bruges 
was  pleaded  relative  to  the  right  of  suzerainty  between  the  kings  of  PVance  and 
the  counts  of  Flanders  as  late  as  the  time  of  Louis  Xf. — Galbert  de  Bruges, 
176,  note. 

*  Luchaire,  Annales,  Nos.  in  loco,  has  a  detailed  account  of  the  history,  so 
far  as  it  pertains  to  Louis  le  Gros.     See  also  Introd.,  pp.  xcv-cii. 

7  Ex  chronica  mauriniacensi,  H.  F.,  XII.,  72.  Tunc  misericordia  Dei 
super  Franciam  respiciens,  perfectissimam  concordiam  inter  eos  misit ;  et  capite 
seditionis  extincto,  quietis  securitas  agricolarum  pectora  laetificavit. 

*"Le  progrfes  territorial  s'accomplissait  parallSlement  au  progrfes  poli- 
tique."— Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  260. 

5  In  the  case  of  Flanders,  it  must  be  said,  that  there  were  extenuating  cir- 
cumstances. Louis  VI.  was  not  weak  as  a  suzerain,  nor  was  Henry  I.  strong 
in  his  own  strength,  with  reference  to  Flanders.  Henry's  advantage  lay  in  the 
fact  that  he  espoused  the  candidate  whom  the  people  wanted.  The  moral 
opposition  of  the  Flemings  defeated  Louis  VI.  more  than  sheer  force  of  arms. 
And  even  in  Flanders  Louis  VI.  did  not  wholly  depart  from  his  policy.  Hermann 
deTournai  (M.G.  H.,  SS.  xiv.,  294)  distinctly  says  that  he  cast  aside  for  pruden- 
tial reasons,  the  countship  of  Flanders  either  for  himself  or  for  his  sons : — Et 
quia  plures  filios  habebat,  et  uni  eorum  Flandriam  daret,  suggerebant.  Sed 
rex,  ut  vir  prudentissimus,  considerans  nullum  filiorum  suorum  adhuc  esse  duo- 


io8  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

which  it  was  possible  for  him  to  be  efficient.  Acquisition  was 
confined  to  repairing,  either  by  annexation,  confiscation  or  sub- 
jugation, the  breaches  in  the  frontier.  Besides  the  commune  of 
Dreux,'  he  had  strengthened  the  border  in  other  places.  The 
districts  Louis  redeemed  from  local  tyrannies  were  attached 
to  the  territory  of  the  crown  as  counties  or  chatellanies.  Mont- 
Ihery,  Rochefort,  Ferte-Alais  and  the  lands  of  Hugh  de  Puiset 
were  united  to  the  crown  as  the  county  of  Corbeil.'  Cases  like 
this  afforded  Louis  VL  an  invaluable  opportunity  to  establish 
a  local  government  free  from  the  taint  of  tradition.^  The 
Gatinais  was  increased  by  Yevre-le-Chatel  and  Chambon, 
bought  of  Foulque,  and  strongholds  were  erected  at  Montchauvet, 
Gres,  Moret,  le  Chatellier,  Janville  and  Charlevanne,  to  insure 
peace  along  the  margins  of  the  royal  domain,"*  as  Montlheri, 
Ferte-Alais,  le  Puiset  and  Chateaufort  gave  tranquillity  to  Orlean- 
nais  and  the  region  of  Etampes.  Such  acquisitions,  though 
acquired  by  means  recognized  by  feudal  law,  were,  however,  held 
by  royal  tenure  and  hence  tended  to  the  homogeneity  of  the 
realm. 5  By  being  faithful  over  a  little  —  by  being  faithful  to  the 
ancient  patrimony  of  the  Capetians,  Louis  VI.  made  it  possible 
for  Philip  Augustus  and  St.  Louis  to  be  rulers  over  much.*     Even 

dennem  nee  sine  magistro  qui  ei  jugiter  adhaereret,  tarn  indomitam  posse  regere 
gentem,  et  ei  se  non  posse  semper  esse  praesentem ;  timens  ne  aliquid  exinde 
mall  eis  contingeret,  altiori  consilio  refugit  aliquem  ex  eis  terrae  proeficere. 

'  All  that  is  known  of  Dreux  is  grouped  in  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  6, 
note. 

'  II  avail  fallu  vingt  ans  au  pouvoir  royal  pour  eteindre  les  petites  tyran- 
nies locales  de  Montlhery,  de  Rochefort,  de  la  Ferte-Alais,  du  Puiset,  et  pour 
rdunir  a  la  couronne  leurs  possessions  territoriales,  aussi  que  le  comt^  de  Cor- 
beil.  De  toutes  ces  seigneuries,  celle  de  Montlhery  ^tait  la  plus  importante  et 
elle  s'accrut  encore  de  terres  et  de  fiefs  appartenant  a  des  arri^re-vassaux 
entrain^s  dans  la  revoke  de  leur  suzerain. — Vuitry,  I.,  185.  The  pr^votds  of 
Corbeil,  Montlhery,  Saint  Leger  and  Yveline,  which  figure  in  the  account  of 
1202  are  of  this  origin. 

3  Luchaire,  Manuel,  265. 

4  Luchaire,  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  260-1. 

s "  Le  domaine  royal  s'agrandit  au  moyen  de  contrats  propres  au  regime 
f^odal,  tenant  moins  du  droit  public  que  du  droit  priv^,"  i.  e.,  the  right  of  the 
king. — Vuitry,  I.,  p.  21. 

*"  Philip  reared  the  structure  of  government  on  foundations  already  laid. 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  109 

as  it  was,  so  imposing  was  his  reputation  among  the  princes  of 
Europe  that  in  the  second  year  of  his  undivided  rule  (1109) 
Raymond-Berenger  III.,  the  Count  of  Barcelona,  implored  his 
succor  against  the  Saracens  of  Spain;'  and  Bohemond  of 
Antioch  thought  he  was  strengthened  in  the  eyes  of  the  Infidel 
because  he  had  married  the  sister  of  the  King  of  France  (1106).' 
But  the  theory  of  the  Middle  Ages  which  regarded  the  empire  as 
an  international  power,  went  farther  than  the  name  of  king,  and 
sometimes  attributed  to  Louis  VI.  even  the  imperial  title  itself.^ 
Such  ascription,  however,  was  evanescent.  The  growing  unity  of 
France  shunned  a  title  which  implied  so  little  nationality.  In  its 
stead  the  royal  prestige  found  expression  in  the  title  of  "Most 
Christian  King,"  which,  from  the  time  of  Louis  le  Gros,  is  gen- 
erally attached  to  the  princes  of  the  Capetian  house.* 

A  developer  rather  than  an  innovator,  his  reign  brought  into  bloom  the  germs 
which  had  come  into  being  under  Louis  VI  ...  .  and  which  the  chill  and 
feeble  rule  of  Louis  VII.  could  not  destroy." — Walker,  144. 

'  Luchaire,  Annales,  No.  73  ;  Petit,  Hist,  des  Dues  de  Bourgogne,  I.,  291-2 ; 
H.  F.,  xii.,  281. 

'"Tanta  etenim  et  regni  Francorum  et  domini  Ludovici  preconabatur 
strenuitas,  ut  ipsi  etiam  Saraceni  hujus  terrore  copule  terrerentur."  —  Suger,  23. 

3 So  Galbert  de  Bruges  (c.  52)  uses  the  words  "secundum  consilium  regis 
Ludewici,  Franciae  imperatoris"  (1127).  In  a  charter  of  11 18  Louis  VI.  styles 
himself  "  Ludovicus  ....  Francorum  imperator  augustus "  (Luchaire,  Inst. 
Mon.,  II.,  appendix  18,  pp.  340-1,  publishes  the  text  in  full.)  M.  Leroux  in 
the  Kevue  IIistorique,X.\AX.  (1892),  p.  255,  Za  Royaute  fran^aise  et  le  Saint 
Empire  Romain,  thinks  that  this  innovation  on  the  part  of  Louis  le  Gros  was 
after  1125,  that  is,  after  the  death  of  Henry  V.  There  is  reason  to  think 
that  France,  in  theory  at  least,  during  the  Middle  Ages,  was  considered  a  part 
of  the  Holy  Roman  Empire.  When  Odo  II.,  Count  of  Blois  and  Champagne, 
was  defeated  by  the  first  Salic  emperor,  the  Capetian  king  had  no  ground  upon 
which  he  could  deny  the  right  of  the  emperor  to  carry  his  victory  over  upon 
the  soil  of  France.  (Ranke,  Franzosische  Geschichte,  Werke,  VIII.,  p.  21.) 
Philippe  le  Hardi  was  an  unsuccessful  aspirant  for  the  imperial  crown  (Langlois, 
Le  Rigne  de  Philippe  le  Hardi,  pp.  64-70.)  M.  Leroux,  in  the  article  cited, 
instances  the  French  policy  in  Italy  in  the  fourteenth  century  as  showing  the 
intention  of  French  kings  to  attain  the  imperial  dignity.  Even  as  late  as  the 
sixteenth  century  (1519),  the  same  hope  lingered  in  the  breast  of  Francis  I. 

4  It  did  not  become  an  exclusive  ascription  of  the  French  crown  until  the 
time  of  Louis  XI.     Cf.  Notice  des  MS.,  Acad,  des  Belles-lettres,  XXIX.,  p.  18. 


no  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

But  no  prestige  of  title  could  avail  against  the  sterner  reality 
of  a  foe  upon  the  north  of  France.  The  disastrous  results  of  his 
intrigues  in  Normandy  taught  Louis  VI.  that  the  security  of  France 
lay  in  a  territorial  counterpoise  to  the  barrier  duchy.  The  influ- 
ence of  Suger  had  brought  the  grand  fief  of  Blois-Champagne 
into  the  orbit  of  the  king's  influence  in  1135.'  Louis'  position  in 
the  south  was  strong  in  the  last  years  of  his  reign.  The 
sire  de  Bourbon  was  his  ally ;  the  counts  of  Nevers  and 
Auvergne  were  friendly,  and  Burgundy  also  was  favorably 
disposed.  Across  the  Loire  lay  the  great  duchy  of  Aquitaine 
with  its  numerous  dependencies.  Louis  le  Gros  was  the 
guardian  of  the  young  duchess  Eleanor.^  Destiny  pointed  to 
the  union  of  France  of  the  north  and  France  of  the  south,  in  the 
marriage  (24  July-i  August,  1137)  of  Eleanor  and  Louis  the 
Young,  the  heir  to  the  crown.  The  annexation  of  Aquitaine 3  was 
the  consummation  of  the  reign  of  Louis  VL''     It  doubled  the 

'Suger,  151,  note  3.  Ord.  Vit,  V.,  48.  For  the  importance  of  this  event, 
see  Luchaire,  AVz/w^  Historique,  XlNll.  (1888),  p.  274,  Louis  le  Gros  et  son 
Palatins:   Annales,  No.  559,  and  Introd.  xcii. 

2  On  the  will  of  William  of  Aquitaine,  see  Acad,  des  Inscript.,  t.  XLIIL, 
p.  421.     Consult  also,  Luchaire,  Manuel,  217,  d.,  and  note  2. 

3  For  the  extent  of  Aquitaine,  see  Luchaire,  Lnst.Mon.,  II.,  261-2;  Lalanne, 
Diet.  hist,  de  la  France,  in  loc,  says  :  Le  duchd  d'Aquitaine  dont  Eldanore 
dtait  hdritifere,  comprenait  done  les  comtds  de  Poitiers  et  du  Limousin  avec  la 
suzerainete  de  I'ancienne  province  eccl^siastique  qui  avait  €X.€  I'Aquitaine 
secunde  ;  il  s'dtendait  d'un  cotd  sur  la  province  d'Auch,  le  duch^  de  Gascogne, 
les  comt^s  de  Bourdeaux  et  d'Agen,  et  de  I'autre  sur  la  partie  de  la  Touraine 
situ^e  sur  la  rive  gauche  de  la  Loire.  II  ^tait  suzerain  de  I'Auvergne,  dans  la 
province  eccldsiastique  de  Bourges,  autrefois  I'Aquitaine  secunde ;  mais  les 
autres  pays  dependant  de  cette  province  relevaient  des  comtes  de  Toulouse,  qui 
possddaient  le  Quercy,  I'Albigeois,  le  Rouerque,  le  Gevaudan,  le  Velay — aussi 
quelques  auteurs,  pour  distinguer  ces  deux  parties  de  I'ancienne  Aquitaine,  ont 
donne  le  nom  de  Guyenne  a  celle  dont  les  comtds  des  Poitiers  dtaient  dues. 
Cy.  Vuitry  1.,  188.  Hirsch,  15,  is  in  error  regarding  Berry  and  Touraine.  On 
the  general  subject,  see  Luchaire,  Annales,  Introd.,  cxi.-cxiv.  The  sources  are 
numerous:  Suger,  123  ff.;  Ord.  Vit.,  V.,  81  ff.  ;  H.  Y.,  XII.,  68;  83-4;  116; 
119;  125;  219;  409;  435,  etc. 

4  At  the  next  Christmas  feast  the  king  of  what  was  really  a  new  monarchy 
received  his  crown  at  Bourges  ....  Thus  for  one  moment,  as  long  as  Louis 
and  Eleanor  remained  man  and  wife,  the  lands  south  of  the  Loire  became  what 
they  had  never  been  before  ;  what,  save  for  one  moment  of  treachery  {i.  e.,  the 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  ■    ill 

size  of  the  realm  and  carried  with  it  a  direct  control  over  Guy- 
enne,  Saintonge  and  part  of  Poitou,  with  the  suzerainty  of  Tou- 
louse and  its  affiliated  group,  Auvergne,  lower  Touraine  and  Berry. 
And  yet  the  acquisition,  grand  as  it  was,  was  less  advantageous 
than  Louis  VI.  thought.  He  thought  he  saw  the  shadow  of  an 
Anglican  domination  lifted  since  the  young  Louis  was  now  king, 
or  suzerain,  of  all  the  lands  from  Paris  to  the  Pyrenees.  But 
Touraine  and  Toulouse,  Berry,  La  Marche  and  a  portion  of 
Poitou  were  not  integral  parts  of  the  realm ;  they  were  more  an 
embarrassment  than  an  advantage."  The  puissance  of  the  mon- 
archy lay  north  of  the  Loire,^  where  Louis  VI.  had  ruled  with  firm 
hand  for  nearly  thirty  years. ^  Here  was  the  core  of  the  monarchy, 
the  kernel  of  greater  France,  sound  and  solid.  Louis  le  Grosdied 
ere  he  saw  the  complete  fulfilment  of  his  plans.*  Eleanor  of 
Aquitaine  was  a  queen  before  she  set  foot  in  Paris.^  But  when 
the  ready  brain  and  steady  will  were  no  more,  neither  the  misrule 
of  Louis  Vn.  nor  the  fierce  aggression   of   Henry  Plantagenet 

fraudulent  dealings  of  Philip  the  Fair  and  Edward  I.),  they  were  never  to  be 
again  for  three  hundred  years — -part  of  the  domain  of  the  king  of  Paris. — Free- 
man, Norman  Conquest,  V.,  276-7. 

'  Luchaire,  Inst.  Man.,  II.,  262.  Consult  also  p.  22,  note  i.  For  the  revolt 
of  Poitiers,  see  Hist,  du  Roi  Louis  VII.,  c.  vi. ;  Inst.  Mon.,  II.,  17 1-2;  Giry, 
Etablisseinetits  de  Rouen,  I.,  345-6. 

2  Pour  la  premiere  fois,  depuis  la  fondation  de  la  dynastie,  on  avait  vu  se 
former  et  se  grouper  autour  du  prince  un  personnel  de  serviteurs  intelligents, 
actifs  et  d^vouds  aux  institutions  monarchiques.  Louis  le  Gros  l^guait  a  son 
fils,  en  meme  temps  que  Suger  et  Raoul  de  Vermandois,  des  clercs  experiment's, 
ddja  au  courant  des  affaires  de  justice  et  de  finances,  et  des  chevaliers  toujours 
prets  a  se  ranger  sous  la  banniere  du  maitre.  Les  grands  offices  etaient  entre 
les  mains  de  families  paisibles,  dont  la  fidelite  et  I'obeissance  ne  faisaient  plus 
doute.  La  curie,  ddbarassee  des  'laments  f'odaux  qui  la  troublaient,  offrait 
enfin  a  la  royaute  I'instrument  de  pouvoir  qui  lui  avait  fait  defaut  jusqu'ici.  On 
peut  dire  que  le  gouvemement  capetien  etait  fonde. — Revtie  Hist.,  XXXVII. 
(1888),   Luchaire,  Louis  le  Gros  et  son  Palatins,  p.  277. 

3 "Dominium  suum  augens,  pacem  circumque  superbos  debellando  refor- 
mans,  xxx  annis  regnum  Francia  viriliter  rexit." — Continuator  of  Aimon,  H.  F., 
XII.,  123. 

''Louis  VI.,  died  August  i,  1137.     Suger,  129-30, 

5  Louis  VII.  entered  Paris  at  the  end  of  August  1137.  Hist,  du  Roi  Louis 
VII.,  147,  note  4. 


112  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  FRENCH  MONARCHY. 

could  undo  the  realm  which  almost  he  had  created  of  his  brain  and 
fashioned  of  his  hand. 

When  Louis  VI.  became  king  in  1108,  he  was  already  a  man 
of  maturity  and  administrative  experience.  The  domestic  policy 
of  his  reign'  is  of  more  importance  than  his  foreign  relations.  A 
policy  of  concentration  was  imperative  for  France  at  that  time, 
owing  to  external  circumstances.  In  the  twelfth  century  feudal- 
ism reached  the  acme  of  its  intensity.  The  principle  of  division 
thereby  prevailing  estranged  the  crown  from  the  members  of  the 
great  feudal  constellation  around  it.  This  state  of  affairs  was 
really  an  advantage  to  the  monarchy,  for  it  afforded  it  oppor- 
tunity to  strengthen  itself  at  home,  to  develop  itself  intensively 
so  that  it  could  bear  the  shock  of  armed  resistance  when  prepared 
to  enter  upon  a  wider  field  of  achievement.  To  this  work,  which 
was  destructive  as  well  as  constructive  —  for  the  power  of  the 
local  baronage  had  first  to  be  broken  —  Louis  VI.  brought  the 
brain  to  plan,  the  will  to  dare  and  the  energy  to  achieve.  His 
position  was  one  of  difficulty.  He  was  the  heir  of  the  accumu- 
lated sins,  more  of  omission  than  of  commission,  of  weaker  rulers 
like  Robert  the  Pious,  Henry  I.  and  Philip  I. 

The  realm  was  small ;  the  royal  power  dissipated  ;  the  crown 
tarnished.  Like  the  greatness  of  Alfred  of  England,  the  great- 
ness of  Louis  VI.  must  be  measured  by  what  he  accomplished,  of 
what  he  had  to  do.  Louis  devoted  his  life  to  the  establishment 
of  the  crown  in  the  regions  of  the  He  de  France  I'Orleannais,  the 
Vexin  and  Picardy.  His  persevering  and  energetic  conflicts,  his 
little  campaigns  which  were  really  hardly  more  than  police 
expeditions,  had  thus  an  importance  upon  the  future  power  of 
France  far  out  of  proportion  to  their  appearance. 

Louis'  appreciation  of  law,  his  readiness  to  modify  existing 
forms  or  to  convert  feudal  institutions  into  instruments  of  crown 
power,  are  evidence  of  his  creative  ability.  Even  when  those 
ideas  ran  counter  to  the  vaster  purpose  of  the  papacy,  France  and 
the  French  monarchy  were  his  first  devotion.  His  reign  fell  in  a 
time  likely  to  be  jeoparded  by  the  papacy.  The  Concordat  of 
Worms  left  Rome  free  to  turn  her  eyes  to  France,  but  the  con- 


FOREIGN  POLICY  AND  POLITICS.  1 1 3 

duct  of  Louis  in  its  dignity,  firmness  and  promptness  saved  the 
French  monarchy  from  humiliation.  And  so  by  the  adaptation 
of  means  to  feasible  ends,  by  the  conscientious  performance  of 
the  duty  that  lay  nearest,  Louis  VL  from  day  to  day  gradually 
raised  the  crown  from  its  ignominy,  rid  the  kingdom  of  internal 
distresses,  and  strengthened  the  rods  of  royal  autho.  cy,  thereby 
leaving  to  his  successors  a  solid  center  of  repose,  a  sound  core 
preserving  those  seeds  of  royal  power  and  authority  destined  to 
blossom  and  bear  fruit  under  the  fostering  watchfulness  of  Philip 
Augustus,  St.  Louis  and  Philip  the  Fair. 

The  End. 


BIOGRAPHICAL  NOTE. 


James  Westfall  Thompson  was  born  at  Pella,  Iowa,  U.  S.  A., 
3  June,  1869  ;  the  second  son  of  the  late  Rev.  Abraham  Thomp- 
son, a  clergyman  of  the  Reformed  (Dutch)  Church,  and  of  Anna 
(Westfall)  Thompson.  His  early  education  was  received  in  the 
public  schools  of  New  York,  and  in  the  Rutgers  Preparatory 
School,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.  He  was  graduated,  with  the  degree 
of  Bachelor  of  Arts,  from  Rutgers  College,  22  June,  1892.  He 
was  matriculated  in  the  Graduate  School  of  the  University  of 
Chicago  on  24  September,  1892,  and  was  fellow  in  history,  in 
that  institution,  1893-5. 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  of  any 
University  of  California  Library 
or  to  the 

NORTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 
BIdg.  400,  Richmond  Field  Station 
University  of  California 
Richmond,  CA  94804-4698 

ALL  BOOKS  MAY  BE  RECALLED  AFTER  7  DAYS 
2-month  loans  may  be  renewed  by  calling 

(415)642-6753 
1-year  loans  may  be  recharged  by  bringing  books 

to  NRLF 
Renewals  and  recharges  may  be  made  4  days 

prior  to  due  date 

DUE  AS  STAMPED  BELOW 


DEC  ?  3  1991 


_.,,.,.1#^ 


7^ 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


